Inspiration and Inerrancy: A History and a Defense

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

'bl5

LIBRARY

DIVINITY SCHOOL.

f

INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY

A HISTORY AND A DEFENSE

BY

HENRY PRESERVED ^MITH

PROFESSOR IN LANE SEMInTrY

CONTAINING THE ORIGINAL PAPERS ON BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP

AND INSPIRATION.

-4f

a.

CINCINNATI
ROBERT CLARKE & CO

1893

/* ^

V'

Copyright, 1892,
By ROBERT CLARKE & CO.

CONTENTS.

CHAP. PAfiE.

I. — The Situation 5

II.— The Occasion 1:J

III. — Biblical Sciiolak.ship and Inspiuation (Lewellyn

J. Kvans) 25

IV. — Biblical Scholakship and Inspiiiation {HenhyPke-

KERVED Smith ) SS

v.— The Debate 142

VI.— Action Proposed KJO

VII. -A Side Issce 17:J

VIII. — (/HAK(;es BiiorcjiiT 184

IX. — Response to Charges 195

X. — Reply and Rejoinder 2<)o

XI.— < luiLT OR Innocence oO:>

XI I.— The Argument ;U0

The Judcjment o()S

Amended Cuakues and Specificationis 380

! v;

;

/ 1 '/ i-, ■'.

\ ; ^

/■■■/■

/ /

X

Copyright, 1892,
By ROBERT CLARKE & CO.

CONTENTS.

CHAP. I'A(JE.

I. — The Situation' r>

II.— The Occasion 1:5

III. — Biblical Scholarship and Inspikation (Lewkli.yn

.] . Kv A NS 1 1*.")

IV. — Biblical Sciiolakship and Insi'iuation (IIenky Piik-

sERVEi) Smith > SS

v.— The Pehate 142

VI.— Action Puoposed KJO

VII. -A Side Issue 17:;

VIII. — (.'HAK(iEs J5kou<jht 184

IX. — Response to Chahges 195

X. — Reply and REioiNDEPt L*!).")

XI.— ( luiLT OR Innocence :;«'):>

XII- — The Argument \\\K)

The Judgment :>i).S

Amended Charges and JSpecifications IJSO

t V ;

INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY.

CHAPTER I.

THE SITUATION.

** If two say the same thing, it is not the same." The
truth of this saying has been repeatedly verified in the his-
tory of the Church. The effort to secure exact doctrinal uni-
formity has invariably led to schism. Every society or asso-
ciation develops two tendencies, and divides itself more or
less distinctly in1;o two parties. It is likely that any denomi-
nation of Christians will always show the same phenomenon —
so long, that is, as outward conformity is not secured by ec-
clesiastical pains and penalties. Progressives and conserva-
tives will continue so long as thought continues. The Amer-
ican Presbyterian Church has not been able to exempt itself
from the operation of this law of nature. The endeavor to
resist it hasv twice resulted in division. Twice the division
has l)een healed in an apparent willingness to submit to the
law. The reunion of the Synods of New York and Philadel-
phia in 1758 was prefaced by the following noble declaration :

** The Synods of New York and Philadelphia, taking into
serious consideration the present divided state of the Presby-
terian Church in this land, and being deeply sensible that
the division of the Church tends to weaken its interests ; to
dishonor religion, and consequently its glorious Author; to
render government and discipline ineffectual ; and finally to

(5)

6 THE SITUATION.

dissolve its very frame ; and being desirous to pursue such
measures as may most tend to the glory of God and the es-
tablishment and edification of his people, do judge it to be
our indispensable duty to study the things that make for
peace, and to endeavor the healing of that breach which has
for some time subsisted among us, that so its hurtful conse-
quences may not extend to posterity; that all occasion of
reproach upon our society may be removed ; and that we may
carry on the great designs of religion to better advantage
than we can do in a divided state; and since both Synods
continue to profess the same principles of faith, and adhere
to the same form of worship, government, and discipline,
there is the greater reason to endeavor the compromising those
differences which were agitated many years ago with too great
warmth and animosity, and unite in one body/' (Presbyterian
Digest of 1886, pp. 47, 48.)

In a body like the Presbyterian Church, whose Confession
is an elaborate one, doctrinal differences are likely to be agi-
tated '*with too great warmth and animosity." Such agita-
tion leads to schism, and the result of schisna is to produce
the evil results described in the above quoted declaration.
The language used at this reunion is really a confession that
the division had wrought great harm. This confession again
is a confession that the Church had sinned in lack of breadth
and charity. For, if these had been more conspicuously
present, the division need not have occurred. This is fur-
ther indicated by the fifth article of this same ** Plan of
Union :"

**It shall be esteemed as a censurable evil to accuse any
member of heterodoxy, insufficiency, or immorality in a calum-
niating manner, or otherwise than by private brotherly ad-
monition, or by a regular process according to our known,
rules of judicial trial in cases of scandal."

THE SITUATION. 7

It requires very little skill to read between the lines here.
There had been too much accusing each other of heterodoxy
in the time before the division. Pains must be taken in the
future to avoid such expressions of distrust. In short, the
whole tenor of this document is to show that the mistake of
the Church had been on the side of too rigid an insistence
upon doctrinal conformity.*

The second division of the Church is often said to have
arisen more from differences of polity than fi^-om differences
of doctrine. But the distinction can not be maintained.
The reason why the Plan of Union was abrogated by the as-
sembly of 1837 was that it was contrary to the constitution
of the Presbyterian Church ; that is, it admitted to a part in
the government of' the Church men not regularly ordained as
ruling elders. The real reason is seen to be the theory of a
jfwre-divino Presbyterianism, and this is a doctrinal reason.
But it is notorious further that doctrinal reasons, properly so
called, largely influenced the exscinding Assembly. The
circular letter sent by that Assembly " to all the churches
of Jesus Christ," sets these reasons forth in the following
words : **As the great truths of the Gospel lie at the foun-
dation of all Christian hope, as well as of the purity and pros-
perity of the Church, we feel ourselves bound to direct early
and solemn attention to those doctrinal errors which, there
was but too much evidence, had gained an alarming preva-
lence in some of our judicatories. The advocates of these
errors on their first appearance were cautious and reserved,
alleging that they differed in words only from the doctrines as
stated in our public standards. Very soon, however, they
began to contend that their opinions were really new, and
were a substantial and important improvement on the old
creed of the Church ; and at length, that revivals of religion
could not be hoped for, and that the souls of men must be

8 THE SITUATION.

destroyed if the old doctrines continued to be preached. The
errors thus promulgated were by no means of that doubtful
or unimportant character which seems to be assigned to them
even by some of the professed friends of orthodoxy. You
will see by our published acts that some of them affect the
very foundation of tte system of Gospel truth, and that they
all bear relations to the Gospel plan of very seriotis and
ominous import. Surely doctrines which go to the formal or
virtual denial of our covenant relation to Adam ; the native
and total depravity of man ; the entire inability of the sin-
ner to recover himself from rebellion and cgrrupiion ; the
nature and source of regeneration; and our justification
solely on account of the imputed righteousness of the Re-
deemer, can not upon any just principle be regarded as
* minor errors.' They form in fact * another Gospel ;' and it
is impossible for those who faithfully adhere to our public
standards to walk with those who adopt such opinions with
either comfort or confidence."

It is quite in accordance with this language that Baird's
Digest speaks of the New School movement as the '* Pelagian
controversy," and of the testimony just quoted as a testimony
against Pelagian errors. In truth, the Old School party were
thoroughly convinced that the New School opinions struck at
the vitals of religion. The reason is not to be sought in mis-
apprehension of the opinions themselves. For when the
misapprehensions were removed by the carefully considered
declaration of the New School men, the Assembly resolved
to send certified copies of the paper **to the respective pres-
byteries to which the signers of the protest belong, calling
their attention to the developments of the theological views
contained in it, and enjoining on them to inquire into the
soundness of the faith of those who have ventured to make
so strange avowals as some of these are."

THE SITUATION. 9

But it is worth noting that this very paper was the one
which quieted the fears of conservative men touching the re-
union of the two branches of the Church. A protest was
made in the Old School Assembly of 1869 against the terms
of reunion, because they allowed ** various methods of view-
ing, stating, explaining, and illustrating the doctrines of the
Confession" in the united Church, as they had been allowed
in the separate Churches. The ground of the protest was the
doctrinal errors of the New School. The answer of die As-
sembly to the protest pointed to the paper just cited as justi-
fying their confidence in the soundness of the New School
party. What had happened to make that a guaranty of
soundness which had thirty years before created such suspi-
cion? All that had happened was, that time had allowed
passion to cool, and in consequence a juster view was taken
of the variety of opinion that might be held within one sys-
tem of doctrii^e.

The reunion was characterized by those who took part in
it as marking an ** era most memorable and hopeful ; memor-
able, as it signalizes the triumph of faith and love over tlw strifes
and jealousies of more than a quarter of a century ; hopeful,
since it is not the result of decadence and torpor, but of
progress and augaiented strength. It buries the suspicions
and the rivalries of the past, with the sad necessity of magni-
fying our differences, in order to justify our separation. It
banishes the spirit of division, the natural foe of true progress."
Those who used such language must have felt that the Church
in the past had been moved too much by the spirit of divi-
sion. But this being so, had they no lesson to learn for the
future ? It is hardly possible that those who advocated the
reunion supposed theological investigation to have reached its
goal. In confessing that the spirit of the Church had been
to narrow in producing the division of 1837, they implicitly

10 THE SITUATION.

affirmed that it might be too narrow in the next theological
conflict. It was wise not to forestall differences that had not
yet arisen. But the whole lesson of the reunion was that the
Church must l^arn to treat new theological issues in aspirit
different from that which had allowed strifes and jealousies to
triumph, for the time being, over faith and love. It would
have been almost ludicrous to maintain that the divisive spirit
of 1837 was wrong, but that it would be right to treat the
new doctrinal differences in the same spirit.

It can hardly be wondered at that the first impulse of the
united Church was to magnify its own orthodoxy. Those
who had belonged to the conservative branch had every rea-
son to show that they had not compromised themselves by the
reunion. Those who came from the more progressive body,
felt it incumbent upon them to justify the confidence placed
in them by the terms of reunion. It can scarcely be denied
by those familiar with the history of the last twenty years,
that the note of ** soundness" has been more conspicuous than
the note of ** breadth." Yet, on the most elementary princi-
ple of mechanics, it must be evident that the Church which
is nearly four times as large as was either body at the reunion,
hasm so uch larger need of breadth. For the larger the body,
the greater the number of opinions represented in its constit*
uency. Historically, our Church has every reason to en-
courage a generous comprehensiveness. The fact that twice
after division we have come together again, contains a very
plain lesson. More than this, the Westminster doctrine of
the Church makes us comprehensive. So far from this
doctrine authorizing us to set up terms of communion and of
ministerial standing by the mere will of the majority, it dis-
tinctly limits these rights by the will of Christ. *' We must not
make terms of communion which Christ has not made, and
we are convinced that He hath not made every truth and

THE SITUATION. 11

every duty a terra." This is the language of the Synod of
New York, in 1753, and entirely in accord with the West-
minster position.

When the Suffolk Presbytery threjatened to secede, and
communicated their purpose to the Synod in 1787, the latter
body addressed them a letter entreating them to reconsider
their resolution, and adding: ** You well know that it is not
a small thing to rend the seamless coat of Christ, or be dis-
joined parts of that one body, his Church. We are all
members one of another ; there should be no schisms in the
body, but we should comfort, encourage and strengthen one
another by the firmest union in our common Lord. We are
Presbyterians and we firmly believe the Presbyterian system of
doctrine, discipline and church government to be nearer to the
word of God than that of any other sect or denomination of
Christians. Shall all other sects and parties be united among
themselves for their support and increase, and Fresbyteriaiis
divided and suhdivided^ so as to be the scorn of some and the prey of
others f" This sentiment is in entire accord with the Westmin-
ster doctrine of the Church. None of the Protestant creeds can
claim more truly to stand for the unity of the body of Christ.
** The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under
the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law),
consists of all those that profess the true religion together with
their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,
the house and family of God, out of which there is no
ordinary possibility of salvation." (Conf. of Faith, xxv, II.)
It was the expectation of the Westminster divines to unite all
English Christians in one national Church. The Presbyterian
Cliurch in this country declared so early as 1729 its willing-
ness to admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as
it has grounds to believe that Christ will at last admit to
the kingdom of heaven. And even before the strong excite-

12 THE SITCATIOX.

ment of the division of 1837 had passed away, the Old School
Asseml)ly used the following language: ** The terms of
Christian communion adopted by our Church have been in
accprdance with the divine command that we should receive
one another as Christ has received us. We have ever ad-
mitted to our communion all those who in the judgment of
charity were the sincere disciples of Jesus Christ. If in
some instances stricter terms have been insisted upon, if
candidates for sealing ordinances have been requh'ed to sign
pledges, to make profession of any thing more than faith,
love and obedience to Jesus Christ, these instances have been
few and unauthorized, and therefore do not afiect the general
character of the Church." Should all professing Christians
now enrolled in the TVIethodist, Congregational, Baptist and
other evangelical bodies apply for membership in the Presby-
terian Church, that Church would be bound in consistency
with its own principles to receive them. Should this come
to pass, however, the mind of the Church would no doubt
favor a broader interpretation of the system of doctrine to
which its officers subscribe.

The two points to which this chapter calls attention are
these :

1. By its history the Presbyterian Church is taught the les-
son of toleration toward supposed new views.

2. By its growth in numbers the Presbyterian Church will
be compelled to the same toleration. A continental church
will necessarily contain a greater variety of opinion than an
insular church.

THE OCCASION. 13

CHAPTER II.

THE OCCASION.

So far from the twenty years since the reunion being years
of theological rest or stagnation, they have been years of re-
markable progress. This is especially trile of Biblical science.
Biblical Archaeology, Biblical History, and especially the new
science called Biblical Theology, have been almost recon-
structed within this period. That the American churches
should be untouched by this progress was not to be expected.
The late Professor Christlieb, indeed, thought that the Ger-
mans had worked out the problems in Biblical science so well
that we might take from them the conservative results, and
escape the conflict by which they were reached. But it is
doubtful whether in th*e field of knowledge results can be
really appropriated without going through the processes by
which they were reached. Our exegetes were willing enough
to rest for a time in the arguments of Hengstenberg and Keil.
But when they felt conscientiously bound to investigate the
arguments of other men in the same field, it was seen that
not all truth was in the possession of these defenders of the
faith. Such men as Tholuck, Dorner, Kahnis, and especially
Delitzsch, were known to be earnest evangelical Christians.
But they were compelled to make concessions on Biblical ques-
tions, and if they why not we ? On the positive side it be-
came increasingly evident also that the historical critics and
Biblical theologians discovered new and valuable truth. The
appropriation of new truth is generally accompanied by the
recasting of dogmatic form ulas. Fortunately the Presbyterian

li THE OCCASION.

Church has a Confession that is peculiarly adapted to assimi-
late new truth in regard to the Bible. That Confession, as
will be shown in the sequel, states no doctrine of inspiration.
While affirming that all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God, it does not conclude that it is therefore inerrant. Em-
phasizing the sufficiency of Scripture as a source of faith and
morals, and its infallibility in this regard, it nowhere extends
this infallibility to any thing else than faith and morals.

New views of truth, however, are judged not by the
natural meaning of the creeds with which they are supposed
to conflict, but by the doctrinal systems which have grown
up about those creeds. When it is pointed out that these
are not the creeds, they are asserted to be logically contained
in the creeds, or to underlie them, or to have been the views
of the makers of the creeds. It is not surprising therefore
that the advance of Biblical theology created some uneasi-
ness in so conservative a body as the Presbyterian Church.
The assembly in 1882, and again in 1883, passed resolutions
concerning. certain supposed errors on the subject of the
Bible and its inspiration. The errors are in one of these
utterances said to result from the " introduction and prev-
alence of German mysticism and higher criticism, and of
philosophic speculation and so-called scientific evolution."
Tlie sweeping character of these assertions is such as to de-
prive them of any force. For they mean every thing or
nothing, according to the interpretation put upon them.
Their immediate occasion, however, is supposed to have been
a series of papers in the Presbyterian Eeview designed to
show the present state of inquiry in regard to the Old Testa-
ment. The papers represented both the conservative and the
critical views — the latter, however, in strictly evangelical form.
Of German mysticism, philosophic speculation or evolution-
ary hypotheses they presented not a trace. Their only fault

THE OCCASION. 15

was that they vindicated the right of critical methods of study-
within the limits of the Presbyterian Church.

As all the world knows, the Rev. C. A. Briggs was inau-
gurated Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in
the Union Theological Seminary, January 20,\ 1891. His
inaugural address was on the subject of the Authority of
Holy Scripture. It was regarded by many who heard hira
us a vindication of that authority, and such it is in reality
and in the intention of the author. Two of the opening
paragraphs make this plain :

*' Human nature is so constituted that, when self-conscious-
ness and reflection rise into activity, there is an irresistible
impulse to seek authority for the relations in which we find
ourselves, the knowledge that is taught us, and the conduct
prescribed for us in life. We may be content as children
with the authority of our parents, as young men and maidens
with the authority of masters and teachers, but sooner or
later, the responsibility is thrown upon ourselves, and we
alone must bear the strain of life, incur its obligations, and
earn its rewards and penalties for time and for eternity. What
authority shall be our guide and comfort in life is a funda-
mental question for man at all times, but never has it been
so urged upon our race as in the closing years of the nine-
teenth century.

** If we undertake to search the forms of authoritv that exist
about us, they all alike disclose themselves as human ^nd im-
perfect, and we feel at times as if we were upon an unknown
sea, with pilots and officers in whom we have no confidence.
The earnest spirit presses back of all these human authorities
in quest of an infallible guide, and of an eternal and im-
mutable certainty. Probability might be tha guide of life in
the superficial eighteenth century, and for those who have in-
herited its traditions, but the men of the present times are in

10 THE OCCASION.

quest of certainty. Divine authority is the only authority to
which man can yield implicit obedience, on which he can rest in
loving certainty, and build with joyous confidence."

Reading these words dispassionately, we must find them to
be words of truth and soberness. The cry of the heart for
light and leading was never more distinctly heard than it is to-
day. The reason for agnosticism is not self-sufficiency. Men
are agnostics not because they are impatient of authority, but
because they can not find theauthority they would be glad tofind.

Dr. Briggs proceeds to discuss the various sources of divine
authority. " There are historically three great fountains of
divine authority, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason."
He contends that each of these has actually revealed God to
men. The position is at least intelligible and defensible. As
the author nowhere characterizes either Reason or the Church
as an infallible rule of faith and practice, he can not be said
to contradict the common Protestant doctrine concerning the
Scriptures. He says, indeed: **If God really speaks to men
m these three centers, there ought to be no contradiction be-
tween them. They ought to be complementary, and they
should combine in a higher unity for the guidance and com-
fort of men. It is my profound conviction that we are on
the threshold of just such a happy reconciliation." While
such a hope is sanguine, perhaps over-sanguine, it can hardly
be called unorthodox.

Before discussing the Bible, the highest of these sources of
divine authority, the author speaks of the barriers of divine
authority in Holy Scripture. By these he means barriers
thrown up by men. **The Bible," he says, ** is the book of
God, the greatest treasure of the Church. Its ministry are
messengers to preach the Word of God and to invite men to
His presence and government. It is pharisaic to obstruct
their way by any fences or stumbling-blocks whatever. It is

THE OCCASION. 17

a sin against the divine majesty to prop up divine authority
by human authority however great or extensive." Yet he
says men have been "shutting out the light of God, obstruct-
ing the life of* God, and fencing in the authority of God."
Such barriers he holds to be : (1) Superstition ; (2) Verbal
Inspiration; (3) Authenticity; (4) Inerrancy; (5) Violation
of the Laws of Nature; and (6) Minute Prediction. Here
again it can hardly be doubted that historically such barriers
have existed. The Bible has sometimes been treated as a
talisman, and this is superstition. Verbal inspiration and
inerrancy have sometimes obscured the historical sense, as
where the harmonists made Peter's wife's mother miraculously
healed three times, to conserve the exact truth of all the
Gospel accounts. Extravagant emphasis upon authenticity
and the fulfillment of prophecy have sometimes diverted at-
tention from the spiritual teaching of the Scriptures. The
Church is not exempt from danger on this side any more than
on any other, and it is the duty of the exegete who thinks he
sees danger on this side to give the warning just as he would
on anjf other. The somewhat rhetorical form of the predic-
tion that these breastworks of traditionalism -are undermined
and soon to be blown to atoms may be criticized, but it may
be justified by the enthusiasm of the occasion in which no
doubt the orator saw a fulfillment of long cherished hopes.

The main theme is now reached in the theology of the
Bible. This is treated under the three heads of Religion,
Doctrines of Faith, and Morals. A supplementary topic is
the Messiah. The conclusion of the address treats of the
harmony of the three sources of divine authority.

It should be noted that Dr. Briggs had already been a pro-
fessor in Union Seminary for seventeen years, and that for
ten years of that time he liad been one of the editors of the
Presbyterian Review, and a frequent contributor to its pages.
2

18 ^ THE OCCASION.

He had published several extended articles or addresses on
Biblical Theology, besides a volume on Biblical Study (1884),
in which his critical views were distinctly stated. Theologic-
ally his divergence from the prevailing Presbj^terian school of
thought was set forth in a volume entitled ** Whither," pub-
lished in 1889. But up to the delivery of the inaugural ad-
dress he was rectus in ecclesia, as is indicated by the fact that
the chairman of the committee which recommended the veto
of his election in the General Assembly stated that he himself
would have been present to hear the address had he not mis-
taken the date. Yet, as has been pointed out by Dr. Briggs
himself, all .the views which were so criticised in the address
were advocated in his earlier publications. Why they should
have been passed by, while the address was at once made the
object of the attack, is difficult to see. Doubtless the fact
that the address was first known in a newspaper report had
something to do with it. The ** Authorized Syllabus '' gave the
most startling expressions of the address apart from the con-
text, which might have thrown a different light on them , but
this is no more than is generally true of a newspaper report.

For whatever reason — perhaps because now was seen to be
a good time to strike — the question of a veto by the General
Assembly was agitated before the full text of the address
was published. The New York Independent of February
5 called attention to the power of the Assembly in the
case, and said: **The question then arises whether the As-
sembly, in the light of the views stated by Dr. Briggs m his
recent inaugural address, will deem it wise and just to the
interests of the Presbyterian Church, and those of sound doc-
trine, to confirm this appointment. This question has already
been asked, and we should not be at all surprised if it were
to come up for grave consideration at the next meeting of the
General Assembly. The fact that Dr. Briggs has subscribed

THE OCCASION. 19

to the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church does
not supersede this question, especially if it be true that his
own formal utterances virtually contradict and invalidate that
stibscription. We do not see how the General Assembly,
when called to act upon his appointment, can ignore these
utterances, or fail gravely to consider their import, and the
question of their consistency with the standards of the Pres-
byterian Church and the teaching of the Bible. The matter
involved is one of the most serious character." The Presby-
terian of the next week, in an article entitled "Pledge and
Performance," says: ** In view of the contradiction that is
apparent between Dr. Briggs' own statements, and their enr
tire divergenae from the teachings of the standards of the
Church, does not the imposing pageant of that inauguration
look very much like an absolute farce?" This article con-
cludes with, urging a most emphatic veto by the Assembly.

It is evident from these early utterances (the full text of
the inaugural was not published) that in influential quarters
Dr. Briggs was already pronounced guilty of heresy. Look-
ing back on the history of the case, one marvels at the readi-
ness with which this judgment was formed and uttered.
According to Presbyterian law, the only judge authorized to
pronounce on a man's "entire divergence" from the Confes-
sion is the presbytery of which he is a member. The Pres-
bytery of New York has now (January, 1893) pronounced
upon this alleged divergence, after examination of the full
text of the inaugural as well as other utterances of the au-
thor, and has declared it not to exist. But on the basis of an
outline report one religious newspaper announces the contrary
verdict, and another at least intimates that Dr. Briggs' utter-
ances virtually contradict and invalidate his subscription to
the Confession. The whole agitation for the veto was based

20 THE OCCASION.

upon such prejudgments, and the veto itself had no other
reason.

On the 16th day of February, an adjourned meeting of the
Presbytery of Cincinnati was held, at which an overture to
the General Assembly was offered, calling attention to the
inaugural, and asking the Assembly (in effect) to veto the
election. Some of the members present at this meeting ob-
jecting to the overture, it was referred to a committee, which
reported at another meeting held March 2. The overture
had been somewhat modified in form, and was as follows :

** Whereas, in 1882, the General Assembly, * in view of the
introduction and prevalence of German mysticism and higher
criticism, and of philosophic speculation, did in the name of
the great Head of the Church, solemnly warn all who give
instruction in our theological seminaries against inculcating
any views or adopting any methods which may tend to unset-
tle faith in the doctrine of the Divine origin and plenary in-
spiration of the Scriptures, or in our Presbyterian system of
doctrine, by ignoring or depreciating the supernatural ele-
ment in Divine revelation, or by exalting human conjecture
and speculation above historical and Divine facts and truths ; *
and,

** Whereas, The General Assembly, in 1883, did again de-
clare * itself clearly and decidedly on the rationalistic treatment
of the Holy Scriptures ; ' and,

** Whereas, quite recently, in connection with the public in-
auguration of a professor in one of our theological seminaries,
the Church has been disturbed, and apprehension excited by
utterances as given in what is declared to be an authorized
syllabus of the professor's address, apparently rash and un-
guarded and erroneous in their tendency, as calculated to un-
settle faith in the inspiration, genuineness, and infallibility of
the Scriptures; therefore,

THE OCCASION. 21

" Resolved, That while we recognize the importance of full
and free critical study of the Scriptpres and kindred subjects,
provided it be made in a reverential spirit, and with the pur-
pose of vindicating the true nature of the Scriptures as held
by our Church, we, nevertheless, deem such utterances worthy
of the attentidn of the General Assembly ; and furthermore,
we would petition the General Assembly, which is to meet the
third Thursday of May, 1891, at Detroit, to take such action
as shall in 4ts judgment be best adapted to preserve the peace,
purity, and prosperity of the Church."

Examination of this paper shows that it was in fact a con-
demnation of Dr. Briggs as heretical. The citation of the action
of the Assembly of 1882 was irrelevant unless Dr. Briggs were
supposed to be under the influence of German mysticism or
philosophic speculation. The citation equally implied that he
was inculcating views tending to unsettle faith in our Presby-
terian system of doctrine. The action of the Assembly of
1883 also could be of no force unless Dr. Briggs were
adjudged guilty of rationalistic treatment of the Holy
Scriptures. The resolution was an unconstitutional measure
because it pronounced on the ministerial fitness of a member
of another body. Almost equally objectionable is the positive
principle of Biblical inquiry announced. The Presbytery
recognized the importance of full and free critical study of the
Scriptures and kindred subjects, provided it be made in a
reverential spirit, and with the purpose of vindicating the true
nature of the Scriptures as held by our Church. The assump-
tion is worthy of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserts that
our Church already holds the true nature of the Scriptures.
So long as critical investigation does not disturb the estab-
lished belief of the Church, but confirms it, it may be en-
couraged. But one can not help raising the question : How,

;

22 THE OCCASION

if the Church has been mistaken in some respects as to this
true nature of the Scriptures? The answer to this is in the
mind of the movers of the resolution, that so soon as inquiry-
unsettles faith in a single statement of the Confession, it must
be condemned by the General Assembly; rather let us say
(for there is no attempt to quote definite and specific state-
ments of the Confession) that so soon as critical inquiry shall
unsettle faith in the dogmatic system which is generally
taught in our church, critical inquiry must go outside the
Church. A more glaring claim of infallibility in doctrine was
never made by any Church.

The question raised by this resolution concerned every
member of the Presbytery. It was evident from the first
that the party in favor was ve^y strong. But those of us
who were of another way of thinking felt that it was not a
case where a silent vote in the negative was sufficient to
satisfy conscience. As we looked at it, the Presbytery were
about to commit a rash and unwise act. The act was rash
because based on a newspaper report. It was unwise because
calculated to increase prejudice already strong enough. It
was besides unconstitutional, in that it was in fact a judg-
ment on the soundness of a man not under our jurisdiction.
So much as Presbyters we were bound to say. And this
was all that we did say at this meeting of Presbytery. By
toe I mean Professor Evans and myself, though there were
not wanting others to stand by us in the minority.

Professor Llewelyn J. Evans was at this time in charge
of the department of New Testament Greek and Exegesis
in Lane Seminary. He had been engaged in teaching in
the Biblical department twenty-four years, having been
earlier professor of church history. In his own department
he ranked among the first scholars and teache];s of the

THE OCCASION. " 23

country. Against his orthodoxy there had never been a
breath of suspicion. Of late years, owing to the state
of his health, he had not spoken much in public, and
in this exigency he might have excused himself from speak-
ing. But he felt that it was a time to speak, no matter
what it might cost the individual. On the questions before
Presbytery he was easily one of the first authorities in the
country. He saw the danger of drawing dogmatic lines so
rigidly as to shut out well established conclusions, and so.
of forcing the Church into an yntenable position. For this
reason he opposed the overture in the Presbytery, though at
the meeting of March 2 he confined himself to the grounds
already stated. He felt, however, that the time had come for
a discussion of the merits of the question. He believed that
the positions of Dr. Briggs in the inaugural (as well as in his
books) were not in conflict with the system of doctrine adopted
by the Presbyterian minister at his ordination. As an exegete
he felt that not to say this (or simply to say it and not show
it in detail) would cause himself to be misunderstood.

Dr. Evans therefore, in spite of his physical infirmity, and
in fact at great risk to his health, made up his mind to go
into the merits of the question, and to ask Presbytery to hear
him at some length. Our position at the March meeting was
already criticized. One of the daily papers pronounced our
views virtual infidelity. At the Ministerial Association I
was asked to read a paper on the subject of inspiration — with
the evident purpose of getting me to *^ explain my inten-,
tions." There was every reason why the question thus forced
upon us should be discussed fully and frankly. In this
conviction I arranged with the Ministerial Association that
Dr. Evans should read his paper before that body, and that I
should follow. As the matter was of interest to others than

24 THE OCCASION.

Presbyterians, I suggested also that the meeting be thrown
open to the public. After the papers were read, many re-
quests were made that they be printed, and thej were conse-
quently published. They are here given (in the next two
chapters) as originally read.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 25

CHAPTER III.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

I. — By Llewelyn J. Evans.

•
It is the purpose of this discussion to present some of the
accepted conclusions of the best Christian scholarship of the
day respecting certain features of our sacred Scriptures, as
'these conclusions bear on the question of the inspiration, in-
fallibility, and authority of these Scriptures, and -on the
rights and obligations of those who are appointed to direct
the study of them in our theological schools. It is a question
which, whatever we may think of the occasion or the meth-
ods which have precipitated it upon us, has been pushed to
the front by tendencies and conditions the operation of which
it was not within the power of man to stem or to control.
Now that the issue is upon us we must meet it, in no temper
of suspicion, prejudice, or partisanship, but in a frank,
manly, straightforward way, and in a spirit of loyalty to the
truth, to our church, and to God.^ As to the personal form
which the issue has taken, as a movement to challenge and
to invoke the formal and authoritative condemnation, by the
Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, of
certain utterances respecting the Scriptures, and Scripture
truths, recently made by a prominent theological prpfessor
in our church, I shall have very little directly to say. I am

26 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

not concerned to justify the utterances of my brother pro-
fessor in detail. In that particular, my friend is abundantly
able to take.* care of himself. If, as I confidently hope, the
views which are here urged shall obtain from the Church, in
its ultimate decision, the recognition which is claimed for
them as scriptural, evangelical, confessional, scientific, rev-
erent, and indispensable to the satisfactory and permanent
solution of the great problems of our age, and to the har-
mony of religious faith with scientific and critical processes
and results, I have no fear that any one will be wronged.
The principles which are at stake are to my mind more vital
than any personal issue. The movement of which I have
spoken, 'and the utterances in the press and elsewhere which
have accompanied and interpreted its inception and pur-
pose, convince me that the time has come for a definite
understanding respecting the rights of Christian Scholarship
in the Biblical departments of our Theological Seminaries.
That is' a question in which I may be pardoned for feeling an
intense personal interest. It is a question which afiects my
calling, my work, my very life. If there is any thing in
which my whole being is wrapped up, it is the study and
teaching of the Word of God. If there is any thing that I
love with every fiber of every heart-string, it is that blessed
old book. If there is any thing for which, so far as I know
myself, I would gladly lay down my life, it is that this Book
may be known and read throughout the length and breadth
of the world as the guide of lost souls to heaven. It is be-
cause I believe in this Book with a conviction and love which
grow with every year's study of it, that I take my present
position. And it is because I believe that, in order the
sooner and the better to accomplish its mission in the world,
it must be rescued out of a false position, and be put before
the world where it puts itself, that I would fain help in clear-
ing off the stumbling-blocks which mistaken zeal has put in
the way of inquiring souls, and dig down through the quick-

N

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 27

sands of false definitions and untenable theories to what Mr.
Gladstope so truly and forcibly calls, ''''The i7npregnable rock
of Holy Scripture y

As I have already said, the time has come for a definite
understanding in regard to what I may briefly Call the Biblical
situation. What have we the right to teach about the Bible?
We ipust come to a clear and cordial understanding in re-
spect to that question. I trust it is not vanity that prompts
me to hope I may say something that will help to bring about
such an understanding. I would fain believe that I am in a
position to understand both sides on the question at issue.
There is much in the position of the brethren whose course
on the particular issue before us I feel constrained to oppose
that commands my hearty assent. I honor, I hope I share
in their zeal for the supreme authority of the Word of God.
In their opposition to every movement of thought which
tends to undermine that authority, I am with them. If I be-
lieved that the apprehensions w^hich inspire their present
action were well grounded, I would earnestly support it.

I furthermore believe that it is all-important that there
should be the most thorough accord between the work that
is done and the instruction that is given in our Seminaries,
and the work done and the instruction given in our pulpits
and parishes. There should be the most hearty unity of
thought, feeling, and action, between theological professors
and pastors, in our common work for the Master. I believe
it is incumbent on both sides to maintain this entente cordiale.
It is incumbent on us as professors so to carry on our work
that the hands of our brethren in the field shall be strength-
ened. We are under obligation to do nothing that we can
consistently avoid doing that will discourage, disturb, embar-
rass them in their great and holy mission, and so to train the
young men under our care that they shall go forth equipped
to reinforce them at every point. On the other hand, I
claim from my brethren reciprocity in this matter. I ask

28 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

that they accord to us their confidence, that they beware of
unjust suspicions, that they try to understand us in our posi-
tion and work.

Good old Dr. Johnson used to say, "Clear your mind of
cant." Let us try to clear our minds of cant, of mist, of
prejudice in respect to the issue we are trying. I can not
help the conviction that the trouble of the present situation,
the ferment, the unsettlement, the alarm which prevails, is
due very largely — I will not say altogether, but largely — ^and I
must say mainly, to a vague and inadequate conception of the
situation, leading to a confusion of terms and ideas, and re-
sulting in mistaking friends for foes. In Matthew Arnold's

words :

**And we are here as on a darkling plain,

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight.

Where ignorant armies clash by night.*'

There is a good deal of unprofitable mental gymnastics
going on, such as Paul was so careful to avoid. Some of our
good brethren, I fear, are "beating the air," and quite a
number, I am sure, are beating the wrong man.

There is an uncomfortable lack of definiteness and precis-
ion in certain charges which are made. We are hearing
much about "errors," "dangerous errors," "erroneous ten-
dencies," matters which are "calculated to unsettle faith."
What are these "errors?" I suspect, if our brethren who
complain of these things should undertake to frame a declara-
tion, after the model of the Auburn Declaration, setting forth
in black and white, first in the light of Scripture, and then in
the light of the Confession, on this side the Error, and over
against it the True Doctrine, the case would begin to look very
differently from what it does. At all events we should then
know precisely where we are, and exactly what we are talk-
ing about. Differences often arise from ambiguities. We
use the same word in different senses, or we convey the same
thought by different phrases, and then appeal to the General

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 29

Assembly, forsooth, to decide between us 1 Then again the
world is moving on, and it is getting more and more hard to
keep up with it. We are living in an age of specialties, and
of specialists. Even among experts, the ninety and nine
know not what the hundredth man is up to. They know
that they are liable any fine morning to wake up and to find
the Babylon of their fine old-fashioned theories blown up
with the dynamite of some experiment, and Number One
Hundred dancing on the ruins.

Now it so happens that, in the Providence of God, for
better or worse, my lot has been cast in a Theological Semi-
nary. It has been a necessity of my position to give some
attention to the leading Biblical questions of the day. For a
quarter of a century this has been my business. I trust,
therefore, it will not be regarded as presumption on my part
if I indulge the hope . that by something I may say, I may
succeed in bringing some of my brethren into closer touch
with the best Christian Scholarship of the day touching some
of the questions which, are involved in the present issue.
All I claim for myself is that I think I understand both sides ;
and sympathizing as I do with both sides in some things, I
would fain bring them nearer together. And if I make a
more liberal use of the first personal pronoun than is gen-
erally deemed commendable, you will understand my mo-
tive.

Allow me, then, to premise that in the study pf Biblical
questions, which my vocation has made necessary, I have
both striven to keep an open mind, and earnestly sought the
guidance of a wisdom higher than my own. My study of
the history of the interpretation and criticism of God's word
has shown me, as clearly as it has taught me any thing, that
God does lead his people onward in their inquiries of his
holy Oracle; I know, as well as I know any thing, that
progress, wonderful progress, has been made in my own day
in the knowledge of the Word. I do not claim that all

30 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

movement has been progress, or that every ** find " has been
a gain. I am well aware that in Biblical science, as in every
science, there are rash speculations, unproved hypotheses,
wild and dangerous vagaries. Some corners of the field are
full of will-o'-the-wisps, illusive, unsubstantial, unsafe, gleam-
ing, I fear, wit]i a light that is not from heaven.

But on the other hand, there are conclusions in this field
which all whose judgment is worth any thing are agreed . in
regarding as substantially established. There are other con-
clusions which must fairly be conceded to have a strong bal-
ance of probability in their favor. These conclusions must
be reckoned with. Whether we accept them, or reject them,
the data on which they are based must be satisfactorily ex-
plained. ,There are certain ascertained facts — so far as any
historical data can be called facts — bearing on the structure
of »the Bible, bearing on the historical accuracy of particular
statements in the Book, bearing on the inspiration of Script-
ure — facts bearing, that is, on the mode in which the accu-
racy, the infallibility, the inspiration, the authority of Script-
ure must be conceived and defined — which can not be set
aside by sneers at the Higher Criticism, which can not be
offset by vague denunciations of Rationalism, which can not
be disposed of at all without satisfying the demands of the
most enlightened reason, the requirements of the most thor-
ough scholarship, as well as the claims of the devoutest faith.
We must reckon with these facts. We must take them into
the account. We must assign them their true value. We
must make them the basis of our judgments and our deliver-
ances. If the theories of other days will not bear the press-
ure of these facts, they must go to the wall. There is no
help for it. If your definition of inspiration, your definition
of the infallibility of the Bible — mark what I say ! not the
doctrine, but your definition of the doctriner— if that defini-
tion will not stand the test of the established results of criti-

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 31

cism, if it will not harmonize with ascertained facts, then so
much the worse for the definition.

Two years ago it was my privilege to attend the sessions
of the Free Church Assembly in Edinburgh, when Dr. Dods
was elected to the chair of Exegetical Theology in the New
College. The candidature of Dr. Dods was strenuously re-
sisted on the ground of his utterances respecting the Script-
ures and their inspiration. The attempt was made to prove
the unsoundness of his views. How? From Scripture?
No ! From the Confe^ion of Faith ? Not at all ; but from
Dr. Hodge on the Confession. At once, from all parts of
the house, the cry was heard : * ^ Dr. Hodge is not the Con-
fession." That summed up the situation in Scotland. That
sums up the situation here to-day. The Commentary is not
the Confession ; the Confession, let me add, is not Scripture.
But Dr. Hodge is neither Confession nor Scripture. , Or to
state the case more broadly : the Scholastic Theology, which
Dr. Hodge represents, is neither the Confession nor the
Word of God. But there are dearly beloved brethren,
throughout the Presbyterian Church, who are laboring under
the delusion that, if Dr. Hodge is not the Confession, at
least it means, or ought to mean, what Dr. Hodge says. I
hope to show, before I get through, that it does mean nothing
of the sort.

But what does Dr. Hodge say is the teaching of the Con-
fession ? In brief this; The books of Scripture **are one
and all, in thought and verbal expression, in substance and
form, wholly the Word of God, conveying with absolute ac-
curacy and divine authority, all that God meant them to con-
vey, without human additions or admixtures." *'A11 written
under it [the Divine influence called inspiration] is the very
Word of God, of infallible truth and of divine authority ; and
this infallibility ajid authority attach as well to the verbal ex-
pression in which the revelation is conveyed as to the matter

32 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

of the revelation itself." * Or still more comprehensively and
explicitly, in a joint article written ,by Drs. A. A. Hodge
and B. B. Warfield, we are told : ** The historical faith of the
Church has always been that all the affirmations of Scripture
of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine, or duty, or of
physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosoph-
ical principle, are without any error when the ipsissiffia verba
of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in
their natural and intended sense."*

That statement, I take it, gives us the key to the situation.
It is the premise from which have proceeded all the move-
ments in our Church which have been directed, during the
past ten years, against the affirmations of modem Biblical
Criticism. The critics have found that statement of inspira-
tion impossible. Therefore their conclusions are denounced
as dangerous, rationalistic, or worse. This, however, as I
hope to demonstrate, is not the position of our Standards.
On this point our Doctors of Divinity are not the Confession.
But before coming to that point, I wish to say .one or two
other things about that statement.

And first I charge upon it that it is unscientific. It is an
abstract, ^ /r/<c?r/ affirmation, not resting on objective facts, but
evolved out of the depths of the dogmatic consciousness. The
inductive study of the Word of God was practically unknown
at the time when that definition was framed, three hundred
years ago. It proceeds from certain postulates respecting what
God must do in the matter of inspiration, which are assumed
at the outset, without proof, with no adequate basis in the facts
of the case, with no support from any positive declaration
by God himself. These postulates are the product oif the

* Commentary on the Confession of Faith, by Dr. A. A. Hodge,

p. 55.

* The Presbyterian Review, Vol. II, p. 238.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND .INSPIRATION. 38

Scholasticism of the Post-Reformation age, which had inher-
ited the methods, and followed largely in the lines of the
Romish Scholasticism of the Middle Ages. Undoubtedly
there was incomparably more of the material of Bible truth
in the Protestant than in the Romish Scholasticism — for our
gchoolmen did read their Bibles, and study their Bibles, and
got their theology out of their Bibles — and for the time it
was in many ways a grand and .mighty theology. But their
method — and it is of that I am now speaking — was seriously
defective. Such definitions as I have just presented could
legitimately rest only on the most exhaustive induction of all
the facts and phenomena relating to the revelation of God in
his Word ; first collecting and collating these facts, then esti-
mating, analyzing, classifying them, and lastly generalizing
from them according to the most rigorous laws of the induc-
tive process, omitting nothing, inventing nothing, assuming
nothing, distorting nothing. Is that the case? Surely it
would be a rash and unhistoric claim. The older scholastic
theology, which formulated that theory, which has dominated
our dogmatic definitions down to the present day, under the
influence of which most of us have been trained, knew noth-
ing of this inductive process, did nothing of it.

And now, let me ask, is that safe ground to take ? Is it
safe, in this inductive age, to base a scientific definition on
unscientific premises, to reach a scientific result by unscien-
tific processes, to expose the citadel of your position at a thou-
sand points to the strategic attacks of the scientific method ?
Remember that weakness at any one of those points lets in
the enemy. Is it safe to stake the authority of the Script-
ures on the absolute infallibility of every one of a thousand
particulars, every one of which is subject to the remorseless
probings of a science which cares nothing for your theories,
cares very little, possibly, for your beliefs, refuses to know
apy thing but facts? Is that safe, when, according to yow

3

34 bib;.ical scholarship and inspiration.

theory^ the loss of one particular means the loss of all."^
Even Drs. Hodge and Warfield make this admission : "There
will undoubtedly be found upon the surface [of Scripture]
many apparent affirmations presumably inconsistent with the
present teachings of science, with facts of history, or with
other statements of the sacred books themselves."' Surely
it is not inconceivable that in a number of particulars, or say
only in one particular, that, presumption of unscientific, un-
historic, contradictory teaching may turn out to be more than
a presumption. Then what becomes of your theory ? What^
on your theory^, becomes of the authority of Scripture ?

But I have a still more serious charge to bring against this
a priori method, in theology when applied to inspiration. For
inspiration is a Divine Process, What this process is in its
interior nature we can never know. It is God that inspires,
as it is God that creates, and we can no more say how God
inspires than how God creates. What are the necessary, in-
terior. Divine conditions of inspiration ? What do we know
abgut that ? What can we know about that ? All we can
know about it must be derived from the terms which describe
it, the characteristics which it exhibits, the concrete result
which it produces, the effects which follow it. And so I
charge further upon this a priori definition of inspiration,
that it is not only unscientific, but irreverent, presumptuous,
lacking in the humility with which we should approach a Di-
vine Supernatural Fact. Of course I do not mean to charge
conscious irreverence or presumption on those who frame or
hold this theory, but remembering that unconscious faults at-
tach to the best of men, I believe that Charles Kingsley never
said a truer or a finer thing than that "there is an intimate

^ "A proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine,
but the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspiration, in making thos?
claims." Drs. Hodge and Warfield, Presbyterian Review, Vol. II, p.
245.

* The Presbyterian Review, Vol. II, p. 237.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 35

connection between the health of the moral faculties and that
of the inductive ones ;" and that '*God does in science as
well as in ethics hide things from the wise and prudent, from
the proud, complete, self-contained systematize! like Aristotle,
. . . and reveals them to babes, to gentle, affectionate,
simple-hearted men, such as we know Archimedes to have
been, who do not try to give an explanation for a fact, but
feel how awful and divine it is, and wrestle reverently and
steadfastly with it, as Jacob with the Angel, and will not let
it go until it bless them." ^

Now I claim that to say beforehand that inspiration, or any
.such Divine process, must be this or that, that it must have
certain characteristics, is to venture beyond our limits, to
step in where angels fear to tread. You may ask : Is not all
that God does perfect ? Most assuredly. But who are we,
to define that perfection, to formulate its constituents, to
legislate its conditions, to decide beforehand that it must be
thus, that it can not be so, that this is indispensable, that imx
possible ? We are told that at the end of each creative Day,
God looked on what he had done, **and saw that it was
good." And what does God mean by **good"? Absolute,
'abstract perfection in every particular, flawless regularity in
every.line and curve, faultless fitness in every limb and joint,
infallible inerrancy, no wandering stars, no jostling bodies,
music of the spheres, without a jarring note? That is, no
doubt, what a priori speculation would have affirmed. If
our friend, the Dogmatist, had stepped upon the scene in
time, before telescope, or microscope, or spectroscope was
known, that is precisely what he would have laid down for
us as the only orthodox view. He would have had his defi-
nition of perfection, turned out of his machine, square,
rigid, all the sides exactly parallel, every angle ninety de-
grees down to the infinitesimal, every line as straight as the

* Alexandria and Her Schools, Lecture I.

36 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

shortest possible distance between two points could make it —
an exquisite specimen of logical carpentering. * * Nothing
else " — he would have assured us, with that superb confidence
which would be so imposing if it had not so often imposed on
us — ** nothing else is conceivable, or possible in the prem-
ises ; nothing else would be worthy of- God. What God calls
good must be a perfect result, complete, flawless, faultless,
infallible in every detail." But look at the record; what do
you find ? Irregularities, breaks, misfits, broken joints, de-
formities, mutilations, abortions, collisions, discords, imper-
fections all the way along ; and God back of it all, God over
it all, God through it all, God in it all, pushing on his way,
working out his will, and accomplishing — yes, a Perfect Re-
sult ! Ah ! brethren, God's Thoughts are not as our thoughts,
his ways are not as our ways. The designs by which he
works are not patterns for patent-office purposes, not pieces
of dilettante china-decoration, not aesthetic models in wax-
work, ** faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null." No,
sirs ! The Patterns of Deity are commensurate with himself,
they spread over his eternity, they lose themselves in his in-
finitude, they are awful with the glories and glooms of his
unsearchable wisdom, they are rugged and ragged and riveii
with the thunders and lightnings of omnipotence ; they* sweep
on — a Flood of measureless, resistless might — from the Be-
ginning which has no beginning to the End which has no
end ; and what seem to us to be flaws or fractures, miscar-
riages and mischances, are swallowed up and borne along in
the Infinite Tide of his Purpose, the flow of which they n6
more arrest, or disturb, or weaken, than the shattered foam-
bells, or wavering reflows of the Rapids above the Horse-
shoe Falls affect the plunge of Niagara. Flaws ? Yes ; but
look at the Plan, massive with the lines and the curves of
the Infinite and the Eternal, stamped with the symmetries
and the sublimities of a Divine Art, charged with the perfect
purposes of the Will which never fails. Frictions? Yes;

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 37

but look at the matchless correlations of energy, the actions
and interactions of endlessly articulated forces, that deter-
mine the balancings of the dew-drops, and swing Jupiters
and suns and systems along their vast and mighty courses.
Discords ? Yes ; but listen to the Eternal Anthem, the Ju-
bilate Deo, that rings from star to star, and ravishes the
eternities.

If now in creation God can work out a perfect result
through imperfection, why not in inspiration ? But here — in
inspiration — there is another factor to be taken ..into the ac-
count, to wit, the human factor. In the production of Script-
ure we, are concerned with two co-efficients. It is not God
working .alone, but God working with human instrumental-
ities, and using these instrumentalities, not as dead, passive
things, but as free, integral, independent personalities; not
as a mechanic uses his tools, not as a magician handles his
puppets, but as a Living Spirit, breathing in and through liv-
ing souls.

Now it is a law of the Divine Operation, that in working
under finite conditions it respects those conditions ; that in
using created and limited agencies, it has regard for the lim-
itations of those agencies. I am far from saying that no
more is accomplished than would be accomplished if the
agent were left to itself. What I do hold is that the more in
the case, the supra-natural plus, is supernatural, not natural.
The process here, as we are all agreed, is a supernatural
process, the Result is a Divine supernatural result. So much
is not questioned. What now ? Just this : While fully recog-
nizing the Divine supernatural co-efficient, the Divine super-
natural process, and the Divine supernatural result, we must
also recognize the lower, finite co-efficient as continuing un-
alterably itself. Its qualities, its possibilities, its activities,
its inherent limitations remain the same. There is no change
of essence, of structure, of elemental potency. An inani-
mate agent, when supernaturally commissioned, does not be-

/

38 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

come animate. The fire of a miracle is never any thing but
fire. The pneutna of a dead wind is never changed, as the
Rabbis of old thought, into the pneutna of a living spirit.
The irrational brute is not transformed into a rational being.
The raven that fed Elijah was nothing more than a bird.
Nor does man, when supernaturally influenced, cease to be a
man. An inspired man is not God. Dr. Charles Hodge
says, most truly and beautifully : * * When He ordains praise
out of the mouth of babes, they must speak as babes, or the
whole power and beauty of the tribute will be lost."^ In-
spiration does not change the human personality, does not
efface its inherent qualities, does not expunge its limitations,
does not change the finite into the infinite, the human into
the. superhuman. That is the law, the universal law in nature
and in history. If we engage in a priori speculation at all,
it should be along the line of that law. Reasoning ante-
cedently along that line, proceeding from the actual to the
probable, basing our conclusions on what we see through all
the works of God, we should expect to find, in the human co-
efficient of a supernatural revelation, the inherent limitations
of that co-efficient. So far are we from being entitled to say
beforehand that God must make his human auxiliary super-
humanly infallible in every possible particular, that the very
opposite is alone what analogy justifies us in affirming.

Brethren, let me give another illustration of the danger
of such a priori speculation concerning what God must
be or do in the revelation of himself; and may God help me
to treat the subject with all becoming reverence. The Mys-
tery of mysteries in God's revelation of himself to men is the
Incarnation. ** In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God, . . . and
the Word became flesh." That such a thing would be, that
such a thing could be, is what no human speculation could

^ Systematic Theology, Vol. I, page 157.

\

^BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 39

tave anticipated, what no human intellect could have deemed
possible. But let me suppose that in some way, by some
sweet Divine intimation, the thought had come to some de-
vout mind, as, for aught we know, it may have come to one or
another, that one day God would become man. How would
he have conceived it ? How from his narrow premises must
he have conceived it? Is it not natural to suppose that he
would have formulated his conception something after this
fashion: **WilI God indeed come down and dwell among
men as one of them ? What an august spectacle will
that be! What a transcendent type of manhood in all
respects will the world then witness! What perfection!
What dignity ! What invincible strength ! What unapproach-
able, awe-inspiring majesty! How immeasurably exalted
above all his human fellows will that being be ! How serenely
impervious to all the disturbances and distractions of the wel-
tering moral chaos around him ! How divinely exempt from
all the weaknesses, the imperfections, the stumblings and
•strivings of the wretched weaklings to whom he had de-
scended ! God a man ! How can I believe it ? But if a
man, then surely man at his best ! " A natural expectation,
wpuld it not be ? Would the opposite picture have been an-
ticipated, have been deemed probable, or even possible?
What! an Incarnate God down in the dregs of human
existence! passing through, sharing in the infantile de-
pendence, weakness, ignorance, discipline, growth of a
•creature ! coming up like a root out of dry ground, with no
l>eauty or comeliness, that men should desire him ! bowed to
the earth with a burden of unutterable shame and anguish I
and sweating great drops of blood in the throes of the con-
flict! trembling with fear and praying with strong cryings for
■delivery ! touched with the feeling of our infirmities ! helped
l)y an angel ! tried in all things like as we are ! learning — yes,
learning — obedience by his sufferings! tempted! baffled!
groaning! weeping! agonizing! forsaken of the Father!

40 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

•

Man's feeble logic could never have grasped this tremendous
mystery.^ It could never have dreamed it. It would have
protested against it. It must have pronounced it impossible.
If, then, it would have been a mistake, nay, as we now see,
a mistake bordering on blasphemy (see Mat. xvi : 23) to pro-
nounce antecedently against an incarnate revelation of God,
subject to the limitations of weakness, of ignorance, of bond-
age, to the contractions and detractions of that ineffable
Kenosis of the Godhead, ought we not to be most reverently
slow, most cautious, most humble, in pronouncing against an
inspired revelation of God, subject to certain wisely permit-
ted limitations of human weakness, ignorance, and fallibility?'
What know we of the Divine Thought? How know we
what Divine, infallible, and perfect Purpose may be served
even by these limitations and fallibilities ? Does not Scripture
itself intimate that at least there is such a purpose, and that
it does work through just such channels of human frailty ?
Is not God's strength always made perfect in man's weak-
ness? Has not God committed his treasure to earthen ves-
sels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of
God? Did not God choose '* the foolish things of the world,
that he might put to shame them that are wise; the weak
things of the world that he might put to shame the things
that are strong; and the base things of the world, and the
things that are despised, . . • . yea, and the things that
are not, that he might bring to naught the things that are ? '^
If God thus chooses to work out his problems through surds
and fractions and zeros, who are we to say him nay ? Breth-
ren, this is God's way; this is the law. What right have we

> It is enough to refer to the Messianic hopes of the Jewish people^
their rejection of Christ because his coming was so opposed to all their
preconceptions, and to the painful slowness with which even the disciples
became reconciled to the reality. How instructive are Peter's remon*
strances and Christ's rebuke, as recorded in Mat. xvi : 21-23.

' See the extract from Mr. Gladstone below, p. 60 f.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 41

to say where that law shall stop? to decide how much
of the earthen vessel shall count as a factor ? how much or
how little of the human folly, weakness, nothingness, is com-
patible with the Divine Purpose ? God is not limited as to
his means and methods in communicating his will to men.
Had a literal, stereotyped, incorruptible infallibility in every
jot and tittle of the record been an indispensable requisite,
God had a thousand resources at his command for securing
such a record. That he chose men, yes, men, with all their
ignorance and weakness and fallibility ; that he intrusted his
revelation to their stammering tongues and to their stumbling
pens ; that he deposited the interpretation of his eternal ways
in earthen vessels, which could not escape the corruptions
and mutilations of time ; simply shows that a literal, particu-
laristic infallibility is of less moment in the sight of God than
some other things ; of less worth, perhaps, than the thrill of
a human touch, the glow of a red-hot word, the pulse of a
throbbing heart, the lightning of a living eye, the flash of a
soul on fire ; of less worth — who knows ? — than the faltering
of the pilgrim's foot, dearer to heaven than the lordly step
of Gabriel. If I rightly interpret Paul in the Tenth Chapter
of Romans, and elsewhere, it is one chief glory of the Gos-
pel as compared with the Law that it is not a formal, stereo-
typed letter, but a personal voice, a living heart, a breathing
soul, the effluence of a divinely magnetized personality, an
epistle written not with ink but with the spirit of the living
God.* Calvin E. Stowe was not far from right when he said :
*'it is not. the words of the Bible that were inspired. It is
not the thoughts of the Bible that were inspired. It is the

^See Rom. x : 8-10, 14-18 ; xii : i f., 5 f.; I Cor. i: 4f., 17 f. (21); ii:
if.; iii: 9f.; ix: 2; xii: 4f. (12, 13, 27) ; 2 Cor. ii: 14; iii:2f.; iv:
6f. (13); vi: if.; Gal. i: 15, 16; Eph. i: 17 f. (19, 23); ii: 10; iii:
20, 21 ; V : 7 f.; PhiL i : 7, 20, 27 f.; ii : 15 f.; Col. i : 3 f . (6), 9f.; ii:
6f.; iv: 5; I Thes. i: 8; ii: 12, 13; 2 Thes. i: 3 f., ii f. Cf. i Pet.
ii: 5f., 9f., 11 f., 15 f.; iii: i f., 15 f.; iv: 10 f.

42 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

men who wrote the Bible that were inspired."^ I feel con-
strained, accordingly, to protest against the a priori assump-
tion that God can not or will not inspire men without making
them infallible as himself, as unscientific, against all analogy,
irreverent, and presumptuous, as well as unscriptural and
contradicted by the facts.

In all humility, therefore, instead of dictating what God
must do, let us inquire reverently what God has done, how
God has spoken ; in what form, really, actually, concretely,
practically, the revelation of his will has come to men. It is
a theme on which volumes might be written. I can at this
time oiily single out a few salient points. 'And as my own
particular field of study is the New Testament, I will limit
the present discussion to that field. There is this advantage,
also, in looking at this department of the subject: that if the
theory I am opposing is valid anywhere, it applies to the New
Testament; if it breaks down there, it will hold nowhere.

I must call attention at the outset to the disadvantage under
which the defense even of the best attested conclusions of
modern criticism labors from the serious lack of acquaintance
with these conclusions which the attacks made upon them
generally betray. Most of the discussions which have come
under my notice in our religious journals and elsewhere
evince a quite inadequate appreciation of the present situa-
tion as touching Biblical Science. As against the conclusions
of to-day, they are for the most part as ineffectual as the guns
of i860 would be against an iron-clad ship or fort of 1890.
These three decades have effected an enormous change, a
revolution, in fact, in the problems to be solved, in the diffi-
culties to be removed, in the positions to be assumed in the
defense of the truth.

Let me give one illustration : These thirty years have wit-
nessed the birth and early growth of one new and most im-

* History of Books of the Bible, p. 19.

VX

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 43

portant branch of Biblical Science. I refer to Biblical The-
ology, the very chair out of which the utterances have pro-
ceeded which have occasioned the present agitation. Thirty
years ago that science, as it is understood and prosecuted to-day,
was unknown. It is a young discipline as yet, with much work
before it, but entering vigorously on its career, blazing its way,
proceeding on lines of its own, working by methods of its own,
and elaborating results which have their distinct place and value
in the science of the Bible. Young as it is, it has already ac-
complished marvels. It has opened up new vistas of thought,
established new starting-points of inquiry. It has pro-
pounded, and is daily propounding new questions to solve.
It is necessitating new solutions of old questions. It is bring-
ing old facts into new foci, as well as bringing new facts to
light. It is putting old truths under new lights, and if not
discovering new truths, it is at least compelling new and
larger statements of the old eternal verities. Its conclusions
can not fail to have a most important and decisive bearing
on the religious and theological thought of the future. And
yet I have seen in our religious journals articles and para-
graphs criticizing, and even resenting, the claims put forth
in behalf of Biblical Theology, as though the advocates of
that science were advertising some special patent of their
own, or vaunting some special quality of their personal the-
ology* to the disparagement of every other. The same sort
of objection, proceeding from the same want of familiarity
with the subject, has often been urged against the ** Higher
Criticism, "[as though it arrogated for itself a higher level than
your criticism or mine. Those whom I am now addressing
have seen and heard such complaints respecting these sci^
ences. They have seen it argued not so very long ago that
the champions of Biblical Theology were arrogating quite too
much for their favorite study; that all sound theology is Bibli-
cal Theology, Hodge's Theology, Shedd's Theology, and the
rest. But can this sort of thing be accepted as competent

44 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

criticism ? Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology are
distinct disciplines, as much so as Logic and Mathematics.
Mathematics may be logical, but Mathematics is not Logic.
Systematic Theology may be biblical, but it is not Biblical
Theology. I beg your pardon for dealing in such truisms ; I
only regret that it seems to be necessary. Biblical Theology
was hardly in its cradle when Dr. Charles Hodge wrote his
three volumes of Systematic Theology, and I know of no
dogmatic system that can be said to exhibit any distinct con-
sciousness or trace of the influence of the sister science.
The methods of the two are in fact well-nigh incompatible.
Dogmatic Theology is largely deductive ; Biblical Theology,
inductive. The former aims to be systematic and logical;
the latter critical and exegetical. The one deals with re-
vealed truth chiefly in its abstract forms; the other, in its
concrete, historic, and personal expressions.' Systematic
Theology lumps all the books of the Bible together, arranges
their miscellaneous contents around some philosophic center,
or along certain logical lines, picking out one passage here,
another passage there, as the exigency on the one side, and
the fitness on the other, seem to justify; disregarding, or at
most regarding only in a very meager way, the different con-
nections, the variant types, the remote and often antithetic
points of view, the gradual evolutions, the higher and lower
planes of thought and belief. Biblical Theology studies the
Bible as Astronomy studies the heavens ; each star or planet —
Sirius, Mars, Mercury, Venus — in its own place, orbit, life,
development, movement, the minor systems,- Jupiter and Sa-
turn, with their moons, the constellations, asteroids, nebulae,
and all that tells the story of the heavens. So Biblical The-

* See Reuss's History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,
Introduction, Chap. I, "Scholastic and Biblical Theology.** Weiss's
Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Introduction, J I, " The
Problem of the Science."

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 45

ology looks at and inquires into each separate star, the pro-
phetic and apostolic clusters, the major and minor systems,
the binaries, asteroids, satellites, and star-dust, uttering mean-
while the prayer of the saintly Herbert :

** Oh that I knew how all thy lights combine,
And the configuration of their glorie !
Seeing not only how each verse doth shine,
But all the constellations of the storie."

Dogmatic Theology subjects Scripture to the logical cate-
gories, the metaphysical terminology, the polemic accentua-
tions, the ecclesiastical dogmas, which eighteen centuries of
uninspired reflection and speculation on the contents of
Scripture have imposed on our interpretation of the same.
Biblical Theology takes us direct to the fountain-head, to the
original material as it is in itself, as it lies in its providential
environment, as it gushes out of the living well-spring, as by
the divine ordering of time and place and person it pours its
living contribution into the great River of Life.

The theology of the schools is based on the principle of
systematic self-consistency. It is a logical unit; and by an
instinct of self-preservation it ignores it if it can, it excludes
as far as it can, or if it must recognize, it belittles and atten-
uates all it can the antithetic truths which would imperil the
unity of the system. . The Arminian dogmatism does this
with the Calvinistic side of the Gospel. The Calvinistic
dogmatism does the same with the Arminian side. One
Dogmatik says : ** I am'^of Cephas." It fails of absorbing the
best part of Peter, and leaves out ApoUos altogether.
Another says : ** I am of Paul." It excludes John, and leaves
out one whole side of Paul, absorbing his particularism per-
chance, but failing to assimilate his universalism. But the
Theology of the Book and of its books ,is weighted with no
such logical embarrassments. It aims to ascertain what every
inspired teacher has to say, and all that each inspired teacher
says, all of Peter, all of John, all of James, all of Paul, their

46 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

antinomies, their Sjta^ kerfOfitvaj and their Sjta^ vooO/jieuaj
their polarities and their parodoxes, their provincialisms, as
also their large spiritual cosmopolitanisms.

It is not strange that the conclusions of Biblical Theology
should at times seem suspicious to those who have read their
Bibles only through the glasses of a one-sided dogmatism.
There are more things in the heaven and earth of the younger
science than have been dreamed of in the philosophy of the
other. There are aspects of Redemption, of which Paul, for
example, is full, a race-redemption,^ cosmic reconciliation,*
the re-unification of the universe,' of which your scholastic
theology knows little or nothing. Dogmatism gives us one
phase of sanctification, as we find it predominantly perhaps
in Paul, as a subjective, progressive process, predicated of
the Christian in this life. But what of other statements in
Paul, such as that, ** He who began a good work in you will
perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ '^ ?* What of the ob-
jective sanctification of the Epistle to the Hebrews ? What
of ** the purification of heaven " itself in that Epistle ? What
of the objective-subjective sanctification of the Apostle John,
in which there is no recognition of progress even in this
life, but which is presented as a single absolute fact? If
now, by the study of Biblical Theology, I have been aided
to the better appreciation of these many-sided representations
of Divine Truth, am I to be shut up to the one-sided interpre-
tation of a theology to which this method of studying the
Word was unknown? Is all of Divine Truth in our sys-
tematic theology? Is it a// in the Confession of Faith?

^ Rom. V. 8 ; xi : 32 ; xv ; 8 f.; I Cor. xv : 22 ; 2 Cor. v : 15 ; I Tim.
iv : 10; Tit. ii: II. And cf. Gal. iii: 8; Phil, ii: 10; I Tim. ii : 4-6.

* Rom. xi : 15 (cf. v. 12) ; 2 Cor. v: 19.

' Eph. i: 10, 2i-23«; iv: 10; i Cor. xv: 24-28; 2 Cor. v: 17 f.; Phil,
iii : 21 ; Col. i : 20.

*Phil. i:9; cf. I Cor. i: 8.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. * 47

While going with these helps as far as they take us, are we
never to go a step further ?

Biblical Theology is of special importance in thus unfold-
ing to us the compositeness of Bible truth, and in giving us
the key to its rich and suggestive variations.^ It puts us
moreover in touch with the man who speaks to us in the name
of God. We feel that in Peter, in John, in James, we have
an inspired man, not a divinely-manipulated automaton. We
come to understand why, in discussing the same subject, Paul
says this, and says it thus ; James says that, and says it so ;
why the first Evangelist gives this report of our Lord's dis-
courses, the fourth Evangelist that report ; why the second
Gospel puts such a fact in this light, the third Gospel in
another. This Novum Organum of Biblical Theology, call-
ing to its aid Criticism, the Higher and the Lower, ^ puts us
in possession of the human personal equation in the Inspired
Word, as we had never possessed it before. It reveals to us
what Farrar calls * * The Messages of the Books ;" nay more,
the mission of each writer, known and unknown; and helps
us to see how even in his idiosyncracies, even in his limita-
tions, each is fitted for his particular place and task. Take
the Apostle Jude, for example. Look at him as illuminated
by Biblico-Theological lights. What an interesting picture !
What a vivid personality ! With his intense Hebraism, his
prophetic fire, his weird imagination, his antique eloquence,
the apocalyptic tinge of his representation, his mental limita-
tions even, his inability to get entirely outside the literary en-
vironment in which his mind has always moved, with its le-

^ See especially Weiss, Bibl. Theol. of the N. T., Introduction, \ i,
(c). See also the exceUent remarks which follow, (d), showing how
a complete Scriptural systematic theology must build on this composite
basis, uniting all the variations in a larger synthesis, which shall so far
as possible harmonize all, without suppressing any.

* For a list of helps (in English) to the study of New Testament
Criticism and Theology, see Appendix at the end of the paper.

48 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

gendary exegesis and its apocryphal ingredients — ^but what of
that ? What is a cobweb on the mane of a lion ? What is a
fleck of soot, a speck of unassimilated carbon, hovering
around the beacon-fire which warns the ship at sea off the
rocks ? What is a touch of mediae valism in Dante's Divine
Comedy, or an anachronism in Milton's Paradise Lost?
What if one or two minor details in Jude are to be estimated
in the light of the man's literary environment, and qualified
by the clearer teaching of the larger Word ? Was he any
the less a prophet and an apostle ? Did not the Divine Light
irradiate even these minute opaquer spots? Nay, did not
even the relative crudity, which a more advanced New Tes-
tament Christianity soon left behind, have its own peculiar
value and force for the time being, and for those whom he
was specially addressing, and even by virtue of its being no
more and no other than it was ?

In this connection let me note very briefly the vast gain
which has accrued to the critical faculty itself by the use of
the improved critical methods of the present ; the deeper in-
sight, the increased delicacy and tact, the more facile appre-
hension of clues and their leadings, the finer appreciation of
habits and drifts of thoughtj of undertones of sentiment and
experience, of the modulations of mood and passion, of the
nuances of phrasing and expression, of color, atmosphere,
tone, grouping, treatment; — the culture, in short, of those
literary instincts and methods, the possession of which makes
our age, however deficient in creative power, pre-eminent in
critical skill. That there has been a palpable gain within the
last half century in the application of expert tests to the criti-
cism of the Bible on the literary side, no competent and
fair-minded judge will deny.

But I pass on to consider more specifically the results ob-
tained by the application of these tests to the Gospel record
in the New Testament, and the significance of these results
for our conception of the inspiration of that record. After

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 49

a century of exhaustive investigation and sharp discussion,
the most sober-minded and trust-worthy critics are now
rapidly reaching a consensus of judgment on this most im-
portant and vital subject. Certain conclusions may be re-
garded as established to the point of the highest reasonable
probability. I will try to formulate these as briefly as possi-
ble, in so far as they are vital to the decision of the questjon
before us.^ Beginning with the Synoptic Gospels,'^ it is now
generally admitted that in the form in which we have them,
they are derived immediately from certain written sources.
These are mainly two : (i) A Fact — Source, consisting chiefly
of deeds, incidents in the life of our Lord, together with such
conversational or other remarks as naturally accompany them,
to which may be added a few short discourses, parables,
and the like. In its purest form this Source is identified
with the principal groundwork of our Mark. It is found
also as the pragmatic groundwork of Matthew and Luke.
(2) A Word — , or Logia — Source, consisting mainly, though
not exclusively, of sayings and discourses of Christ, which we
find in its earliest and most historic form in Luke, but in its
fullest and most elaborate form in our Matthew, to whom the
earliest tradition (represented by Papias) accredits it. The
primary material of these Sources is unmistakably Apostolic,
using the word in its broader New Testament sense.' It pro-
ceeds from credible eye witnesses and inspired servants of
the Word. This is directly asserted by Luke (i, if.) and con-

^ For the authorities see Appendix.

' The limits of the occasion for which the paper was prepared pre-
vented the carrying out of my original . purpose to compare the Synop-
tic form of the Gospel with the Johannean. Those who are familiar
with the most decisive conclusions of criticism on this head are well
aware how greatly they would have strengthened the argument.

• For which consult Bp. Lightfoot's Excursus on '* TAe name and of -
fice of an Apostle^'''' in his Commentary on Galatians.

50 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND- INSPIRATION.

firmed throughout by the internal characteristics of all the
Gospel narratives.

This Double-Source Theory is now all but universally re-
garded as the key to the solution of the Synoptic problem.^

In addition to these two main Sources, there are other
special documents peculiar to each Evangelist, notably Luke,
as examples of which we may take the opening chapters re-
specting our Lord's birth and childhood, and ch. xv, with its
immortal triad of parables.

These documentary sources, particularly the first two, were
called forth by the inadequacy of the primitive 'oral tradition,
for either the perpetuation or the dissemination of the Gospel
record. They came to be of especial service in the instruc-
tion of catechumens ; and perhaps the most satisfactory ex-
planation of the definiteness, uniformity, and universality,
which they acquired, and which made it possible for them to
supersede all other like documents of that age, is to be found
in the catechumenical use that was made of them.*

^ There is still room as yet for differences of opinion respecting the
precise relations to each other of the original groundworks and present
canonical forms of the Gospels. These differences do not affect, how-
ever, the more essential points in respect to which substantial unanim-
ity prevails. See Prof. Bruce on ** the increasing consensus among
critics of all schools* and countries," and on the way in which "the
question is being gradually narrowed." The Presbyterian Review, VoL
V, p. 630. And compare Prof. Sanday's article, "A Survey of the
Synoptic Question," in The Expositor o{ February, 1891, p. 87 f., and
especially his Second Article in the March number, entitled "Points
Proved or Probable," p. 179 f.

' The proem of Luke's Gospel will be found especially instructive
at this point. It will be noted that Luke recognized the twofold
source of the record mentioned above. He accurately describes the
former when he says that " Many have taken in hand to draw up a
narrative concerning the facts ^* [irepl ruv irpayfidruv), as transmitted
from the original " eye-witnesses " (ot air* apxvc avrSirTai). He well
describes the latter when he states his own object to be that Theoph-
ilus "might know the certainty of the words wherein he was catechet-

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 51

Looking at the way in which the Synoptic Evangelists have
made use of these documents, we find that the versions to
which they had access respectively, while substantially identi-
cal, must have varied in some details. There is internal evi-
dence also that each adjusted and edited the material jn his
own way. Mark, e, g,, has stamped the groundwork of his
Gospel with many vivid touches which' may be distinctly
traced to the personality of Peter. There are visible indica-
tions of Luke's own hand touching up the record in his Gos-
pel, not seldom producing a marked variation from the more
original type as exhibited in Matthew or Mark. He has a
way also of supplying a "motive" for an incident or a
parable, which is lacking in the other Evangelists, and which,
however, it be explained, at least increases the perplexity
of the harmonizer. Matthew has a way of elaborating a par-
ticular discourse, or of grouping parables or facts, on other
than strict historic lines. The Sermon ori the Mount, e. g.y
as found in Matthew, can not be regarded as a verbatim re-
port of a single connected discourse, but rather as in the be-^
ginning, indeed, a memorable discourse, the historic form ot
which has been more closely reproduced by Luke, which
Matthew has enlarged by the addition of cognate remarks
made at other times and places, and systematized into a more
complete ideal presentation by Christ of the principles and
laws of his kingdom. So also in the report of our Lord's
eschatological discourse, Matthew has, by the introduction of
a single word, ^^immediately after the tribulation of those
days" (xxiv, 29), foreshortened, in a material way, the per-
spective of the whole phophecy, putting Christ's final coming,
in accordance with the expectation of the Apostolic age, in

ically instructed *' (^repi uv kott^xV^^ Xdyuv), This last clause is also
significant as to the catechetical function of the earlier Gospel records.
Let it be noted, furthermore, that Luke's statement as to the primary
sources of the material of these documentary records stamps them
with the authority of credible and inspired witnesses. Ch, i, 2.

52 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

the immediate future.^ Thus it will be seen that the editorial
elaboration and adaptation of the source-material has tended
in the aggregate result to multiply and intensify the individual
peculiarities and divergences of the Synoptics rather than to
bring them into closer correspondence.

But back of these documentary sources lies the oral tradi-
tional Gospel, the first form which the Gospel record neces-
sarily assumed, which, of course, disappeared with the first
generation of Palestinian Christians, and soon passed over
into the written documentary form. The theory that our
Gospel record was the direct transcription of this oral Gospel,
which was for a time quite prevalent, has noyv been aban-
doned by all the leading critics as inadequate to account for
the facts, although it is not denied that there are features of
the record for which the recognition of its influence would
still help to account.'

Once more : Back of all these sources, oral and written,
lies the important fact, now unquestioned, that our Lord's
discourses were spoken in Aramaic, and that to this lan-
guage must be referred the great bulk of the original material
of our Gospels. The first form of the oral Gospel was un-
doubtedly Aramaic. The first form of the Logia-Source was,
according to the express testimony of Papias, Aramaic. The
basis of the other main Source was Aramaic, as we may
reasonably infer from the study of Mark, its purest representa-

* Whether, as in the text, the insertion of kvBeu^ be atributed to the
editorial elaboration of Matthew, or its omission to the editing of
Mark and Luke, the effect in either case on the prophetic perspective
can not be ignored.

' It should be noted that a single direct oral prototype of our written
Gospel record is forbidden by the fact that already the New Testament
record reflects three types of the tradition, to wit : the Marco-Petrine,
the Matthaean (Lop'a), and the Johannean, leaving out of the account
the indefinite floating mass of Agrapha^ the study of which has at last
been initiated by the recent work of Resch.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 53

tive. The same was true, doubtless, of most of the other
special documents, e, g,, those of Luke, to which reference
has been made.*

This is the account which the best modern criticism gives
of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. How does this
account bear on the interpretation of the record, and on our
conception of the mode of its inspiration ?

First let us note that we have here the complex result of a
complex process. Our study of the Gospels, and especially
of **the H^Ynony of the Gospels," has made each one famil-
iar with the lack of perfect correspondence between the Gospel
narratives. The synoptic story, I need not say, is full of
breaks, Ic^ps, omissions here, additions there, transpositions
all the way along, ^ with many variations in matters of detail,
which by no means affect the substance of the record, but
which are an endless and often insoluble perplexity to those
who are in search of an exact literal harmony ; Osiander, e. g, ,
one of the earliest of our rigid modern harmonists, finding it
necessary, in order to maintain the perfect consistency of the
record, to introduce Peter's wife's mother as three times
falling ill of a fever, of which Christ three times healed her.
We are all familiar with these characteristics. But the point
I would emphasize is this : the prevalent critical view of the
structure of the Gospel record puts a totally new aspect on
the problem of solving the irregularities and discrepancies.
So long as it was held that the * * original autograph " of each
Gospel was throughout the original production of the author

* On this feature of the case see the very interesting series of arti-
cles by Prof. Marshall, now publishing in The Expositor on **The Ara-
tnaic Gospel y

' "The Gospels, and especially the first three, can in no sense be re-
garded as methodical annals. It is, therefore, difficult, and perhaps im-
possible, so to harmonize them in respect to time as in all cases to arrive
at results which shall be entirely certain and satisfactory." Robinson's
Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek. Introduction to the Notes.

i

54 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

whose name it bears, that Matthew wrote out all the Gospel
under his name, as Plutarch, e, g., wrote out each of his
Lives ; that Mark did the same, either from information sup-
plied by Peter or by simply condensing Matthew; that Luke
at least wrote out an original recast of Matthew and Mark,
with additions from sources of his own — for this was substan-
tially the old theory — it might perhaps be urged, with a show
of r-eason, that these differences, being known to the authors,
were intentional and susceptible qf an explanation to their
minds, if not to ours ;^ that they were in large measure only
a question of order, of expansion, of condensation, of sup-
plementation. ' Even then it was a serious task to reconcile
these divergences in such a way as to meet the requirements
of a verbal inspiration.^ With the present conclusions of
criticism, however, such an explanation is utterly out of the
question. A recourse to the ipstssima verba of the original
autograph fails us out and out. For the great bulk of the
Gospel material there is no original autograph. There never
was one. There was no ipstssima verba report of our Lord's
words taken down on the spot. They passed into the mem-
ory of those who heard them, and that in their Aramaic form.
The two basal records, the Fact-record and the Word-record,
were gradually organized out of those memories. What of

^ ** Such apparent inconsistencies and collisions with other sources
of information are to be expected in imperfect copies of ancient writ-
ings ; from the fact that the original reading may have been lost, or
that we may fail tc realize the point of view of the author, or that we
are destitute of the circumstantial knowledge which would fill up and
harmonize the record." Drs. Hodge and Warfield : Presbyterian Re-
view, Vol. II, p. 237.

' It may be well to state here once for all that in this paper the ex-
pression ** verbal inspiration " is in such connections as the above used
for brevity, and according to a common usage, to designate the dogma
of absolute verbal inerrancy. It will be seen further along that I my-
self hold strongly to the theopneustic quality of the words as well as
thoughts of Scripture.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 55

the ipsissima verba in that organizing process ? ^ With the in-
creasing deipand for exactness, perpetuity, and a wider cir-
culation, the record gradually took the written form. How
about the ipsissima verba in that process ? How close the
correspondence between the oral and the written form?
Who knows ? What modifications may have taken place ?
Who knows ? Soon came the need for a Greek record.
Gfadually the primary Aramaic material took on a secondary
Greek form'. How about the ipsissima verba in that process ?
Did absolutely no modification take place? How do we
know that ? What changes may have come into the colla-
tion, the combination, the didactic and catechetical adapta-
tion, the dissemination of the various numerous records?'
We know nothing of all this. We only know that without a
standing ipsissima ierba miracle running through every step
of all these processes, an ipsissima verba result would have
been impossible. What right have we to affirm that such a
miracle was wrought ? Where is the evidence ? Nay ! every
advance which criticism has made in the examination of the
Gospel record has only made it more and more certain that
the varying representations of the record can be accounted
for only as being the inevitable accompaniments of human
fallibility in the complex processes through which the record
reached its final form. It is now as certain as 'any thing can

^ To relegate this traditional stage of the Gospel record to the cate-
_goryof ** Revelation," and to limit ** Inspiration " to the written formu-
lation, would be the height of logical fatuity and self-contradiction. If
an ipsissima verba inspiration was needed anywhere, it surely was
needed in laying the founcjations of the record. It was the conscious-
ness of this, doubtless, which led Drs. Hodge and Warfield to contra-
dict their own logic and sharp <iiscriminations by saying of the super-
intendence which they indentify with the essence of inspiration that it
** attended the entire process of the genesis of Scripture." See below,
p. 34, n. 2.

* Compare Luke, i : i .

56 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRAXION.

well be as a matter of historical record, that when one evan^
gelist says that two blind men were healed by Christ near
Jericho, while another mentions but one ; when one describes
the healing as taking place on the way into Jericho, the other
on the way out, these variations are to be taken at their face
value, as representing diversities in the sources, as the honest,
but immaterial contradictions of honest human testimony,
when subjected to the complicated and trying conditions
through which the Gospel witness has passed, divergences^
which, so far from discrediting the essential fact, the miracle^
only corroborate it to every candid judgment.^

But it is claimed that inspiration is not necessarily con-
cerned with this process of building up the record, but with
the final formulation of it' I hope to show further along

* The same remark applies to the divergences found in the narratives
of the healing of the centurion's servant (Mat. viii : 5 f.; Lk. vii : if.),
and of the demoniac of Gadara (Mat. viii . 28 f ; Mk. v: if.; Lk. viii:
26 f.) ; the calling of the Capernaum Apostles (Mat. iv: 18 f.; Mk. ii
16 f.; Lk. u: i f.) ; the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mat. ix : 18 f.; Mk»
7 : 22 f.; Lk. viii : 41 f.).

' **/« many cases these gifts [Revelation and Inspiration] were sep-
arated. Many of the sacred writers^ although inspired, received my
revelations. This was probably the fact with the historical books of
the Old Testament. The evangelist Luke does not refer his knowl-
edge of the events which he records to revelation, but says he derived
it from those * which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and min-
isters of the Word.' // is immaterial to us where Moses obtained his
knowledge of the events recorded in the book of Genesis ; whether
from early documents^ from tradition^ or from direct revelation. No-
more causes are to be assumed for any effect than are necessary. If the
sacred writers had sufficient sources of knowledge in themselves, or in
those about them^ there is no need to assume any direct revelation. It is
enough for us that they were rendered inf allele as teachers J*"* Dr. Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. i, p. 155. ** Inspiration is that di-
vine influence which, accompanying the sacred 'writers equally in all
they wrote, secured the infallible truth of their writings in every part,
both in idea and expression, and determined the selection and distribution

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 67

what an utterly inadequate and unscriptural view of inspira-
tion this give§ us. For the present I am concerned with the
literary and critical aspect of the position.

Note to begin with how strange it is that if an ipsissima

of their material according to the divine purpose.** [Observe that noth-
ing is said of the inspiration of the material. That is not assumed as
necessary.] By what some writers, as Doddridge, Lee, etc., have
called "the inspiration of superintendence^''^ is ** mt2Jii precisely what
we [Dr. A. A. Hodge] have* given above as the definition of inspiration,'*'*
Dr. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 67, 69. Drs. A. A.
Hodge and B. B. Warfield, in their joint article, ^^ distinguish sharply
between Revelation, which is the frequent [but not constant], and In-
spiration, which is the constant attribute of all the thoughts and state-
ments of Scripture, and between the problem of the genesis of Scripture
on the one hand, which includes historic processes and the concurrence
of natural and supernatural forces, and must account for all the phe-
nomena of Scripture, and the mere fact of inspiration on the other
hand, or the superintendence by God of the writers in the entire process of
their writings WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR NOTHING WHATEVER BUT THE AB-
SOLUTE INFALLIBILITY of the record in which the revelation, once gene^
rated^ appears in THE ORIGINAL autograph. It will be observed that
we intentionally avoid applying to this inspiration the predicate * influ-
ence.* It summoned on occasion a great variety of influences, but its
essence was superintendence. This superintendence attended the entire
process of the genesis of Scripture, and particularly the process of THE
FINAL COMPOSITION OF THE RECORD." The Presbyterian Review, Vol.
II, p. 225 f. I can not resist the temptation to call attention to the ex-
traordinary logical confusion into which our par nobile fratrum dogmat-
icorum plunge in the last sentence. After " distinguishing sharply " be-
tween " the genesis of Scripture, and the mere fact of inspiration,*' or its
equivalent and "essence,** to wit, ** superintendence^** we are gravely
assured that ** this snperintendence ** [which is "the essence ** of inspira-
tion] attended the entire process of the genesis of Scripture [which is to be
•* sharply distinguished '* from inspiration] ! ! And strange to say this
confusion comes immediately after this solemn warning: **It is im-
portant that distinguishable ideas should be connoted by distinct
terms, and that the terms themselves should be flxed in a definite
sense!** Review, p. 225.

58 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

verba infallibility, secured by a supervision which is the
essence of inspiration, was essential, the record as it stands
should present so many difficulties on that theory. We have
heard of prohibition which does not prohibit, of protection
which does not protect. Have we here an infallible super-
visory inspiration which does not inspire infallibility? It
looks very much like it, if we are shut up to the ipsissitna
verba theory.

Mark again that the difficulties which criticism finds are by
no means explicable as lapses of the pen. They are too
closely bound with the warp and woof of the record. Struc-
tural variations,^ dislocations of the narrative,' the transposi-
tion of events,^ in some instances the duplication of the same

1 As in the reports given respectively by Matthevi^ and Luke of the
Sermon on the Mount. Mat. v : 7 ; Lake vi : 20 f. Compare also the
structure, introductions, contents, and forms of the discourses, etc., re-
corded in Mat. xii: 22 f.; Mk. iii : 20 f.; Lk. xi: 14 f.; also in Mat. x: if.;
Mk. vi: 7 f.; Lk. ix : I f.; also in Mat. xviii : 1-35 ; Mk. ix: 33-50; Lk.
ix : 46-50.

2 E. g. in Mat. (x: i f.) the ordination of the Twelve comes some
time (cf. xi : i f.) before the events recorded in ch. xii: 1-21 ; whereas
in Mark (ii : 23-iii: 12) and Luke (vi : if.) they follow, though at
no very long interval. Again the contents of ch. viii-ix come consid-
erably before (cf. ix: 35 f.; xi : i f., 20 f.) the events of ch. xii; whereas
in Mk. and Lk. the order is totally reversed, the events of Mat. xii
being recorded in Mk. ii: 23 f.; iii: 1-35; Lk. vi: 1-19 {J>. c. Mat.
xii: 22 f. not until Lk. xi: 14 f.), and the events of Mat. viii: i8-ix:
26, in Mk. iv : 35-v : 43, and Lk. viii : 22 f. Again the calling of Mat-
thew, which in Mark (the same order substantially in Luke) comes be-
fore the contents of ii: 23-v: 21, in Matthew comes after the parallel
parts of the record.

' Note e. g. in Mat. the position of the Galilean tour, comparing the
context of Mat. iv: 23 f. with the context of Mk. i: 35 f.; Lk. iv:
42 f.; the place of the Sermon on the Mount in Mat. (v: I f.), as com-
pared with its place in Lk. vi : 20 f.; the order of the three tempta-
tions in Mat. iv. i f., as compared with Lk. iv: I f.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 59

event or saying in the same narrative/ these surely are not
transcriptional deviations from the original autograph.

Still further, on the ipsissima verba original autograph theory,
textual criticism, as it restores to us the purer, more original
form of the text, should tend to eliminate these discrepancies,
and to bring the various representations into closer harmony
with each other. What is the fact ? The very reverse. The
more corrupt the text the smoother it is, the more in harmony
with itself, the more do we find both of verbal and material
assimilation in parallel passages. The older and purer the
text, the rougher we find it, the more striking are its indi-
vidualities, the more sharply accentuated are the differences,
the less conformity do we find to a standard of infallible ex-
actitude.

Let me give you one or two examples : In Mark, i : 2 f we
have two Old Testament citations from two prophets, the first
from Malachi, and the second from Isaiah. In the received
text these citations are introduced with the formula : * * As it
is written in the prophets." The true reading, however, is :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet y^ Here the false read-
ing gave us absolute inerrancy. The true reading gives us at
least an inexactitude, which, whatever else may be said of it,
is not unqualifiedly favorable to the affirmation that the name
** Isaiah " in the New Testament always means one particular
man, and nobody else.

Again : in Mark ii : 26, we read in the Authorized Version
(following the Received Text) that David **went into the
house of God in the days of Abiathar, the high-priest." As
a matter of fact, Abiathar was not the high-priest at the time,
but Abimelech. The explanation which a literalistic exegesis
has commonly offered of the statement is that Abiathar be-

^ Cf. e. g. Mat. V : 29 f. with xviii : 8 f.; ix : .32 f. with xii : 22 f.; v : 24
with xxiii : 22.
' So of course the Revised Version.

i

60 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

came high-priest afterward, and that he is called so here by
anticipation. And we may grant that, following the less au-
thentic text, such an explanation, though not the most prob-
able, was not impossible. But unfortunately Textual Criti-
cism comes in, and proves that the passage should read —
** when Abiathar was high-priest"^ — which puts the old ex-
planation out of court at once. Transcription had corrected
the historical inaccuracy out of the text ; criticism, doing its
duty honestly, has put it back.

Once more: 'in Matthew (xix: 17), where the ruler asked
our Lord : * * Good master, what good thing shall I do that I
may have eternal life ? " Christ answered, according to the
Received Text: **Whycallest thou me good?" Mark and
Luke both give precisely, verbally, the same answer. So far
the theory of verbal inspiration is safe. But unfortunately
here again Textual Criticism finds that Matthew's text should
read— ** Why askest thou me concerning that which is
good?"' — a difference not only in the words, but in the
thought, and indeed in the point and pith of the answer.
Thus we see that the tendency of a more exact knowledge
of the text is to accentuate the individuality and variations
of the records, so far as the nearest approach even to our
original autographs enables us to judge.

And now is it supposed that we solve all the difficulties
connected with the preliminary processes in the building of
the record, by throwing the responsibility for inerrancy on
the final revision ? Shall we say that the inspiration of the
Gospel of Luke, e. g,, is to be sought (or not in the material,
not in the documents which he confessedly used, but in the
editorial compilation and elaboration of the material?'
Surely this is a most unsatisfactory solution. Of all the make*

^ So the Revised Version.

' So here again the Revised Version.

' See note 3, p. 34.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 61

shifts to which the theory of absolute inerrancy compels its
adherents, this is to my mind the weakest. Inspiration a
mere matter of editing and proof-reading, of correction and
revision, crossing out and touching up with the pen an unin-
spired record, and so making an inspired thing of it ! I chal-
lenge this conception here and now as unworthy, degrading,
belittling, as n^ore hostile to a robust, living faith, than any
thing I know of short of rationalism ! Inspiration — what is
it? Theopneustia ! The Breath of God! The Life of
God! The pulsation of God's thought and heart all the way
through ! If you do not give me that, you give me stone for
bread. **The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit
and are life. " The idea that inspiration resolves itself into
the correction of a date, substituting one man's name for
another, changing a number, inserting a caption — important
as such particulars may be in their way — such an idea of in-
spiration is suitable only for Theology in Lilliputia.

But as a matter of fact where are we? What have
we? Have we an infallible revision? Have we an iner-
rant result? Have we a New Testament, or an Old Tes-
tament, with absolutely no mistake, no inaccuracy, from
beginning to end? I know of no respectable critic who
claims that. Every body will admit that in the processes of
transcription and transmission, at least, some error has crept
into the book, some contradiction, some inaccuracy, which,
as the matter stands, can not be accepted as the exact state-
ment of that particular matter. But is not that virtually to
give up the whole position ? What is inspiration for ? Surely
to advantage the reader.^ But what is the value of an infal-
lible editorship which does not secure a permanently infallible

^ " God gave His Word, not for the private use of the fifty or sixty
chosen men to whom it was first revealed, but for the salvation of the
innumerable company of the redeemed.*' Dr. E. P. Humphrey, Sec-
ond General Council of the Presbyterian Alliance, 1880, p. 109.

62 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

text ? Here is an error which has been in the text for fifteen
centuries, and which there can not be much doubt will stay-
there now for all the centuries to come. What difference
does it make, so far as the readers of the past fifteen cen-
turies and the readers of all future centuries are concerned,
whether the error was in the original autograph or not ? How
does it affect the value of the record to-day, for you and for
me, to say that the error which is there to-day was not there
eighteen hundred years ago ? Your inerrant autograph is an
abstraction ; your inerrant text is an abstraction. Does God
hang his revelation on an abstraction ? Does the present er-
ror destroy the inspiration of the Bible as we have it ? We
all say not. Then why should the original error destroy the
inspiration of the Bible as it was first given ? If absolute
verbal infallibility was essential to inspiration, does not the
loss of that infallibility imply the loss of that inspiration ? If
it was essential that the first copy should be inerrant in ev-
ery possible particular, if without such inerrancy it could
have no authority, why is not the same inerrancy essential to
every copy, and where does the authority of our present
copies come from? You say: **A single error breaks down
the Bible. " ^ One comes up and points out an apparent error.
Drs. Hodge and Warfield are constrained to admit that it has all
the appearance of an error, '^ but that if we only had the orig-
inal autograph, etc. He is a busy man, and cares very little
for hypothetical abstractions and replies : ** On your own theory
the Bible has all the appearance of being broken down by what
has all the appearance of being an error. When you find your
original autograph I shall be pleased to hear from you."
You get the General Assembly to declare that unless God

^ "A proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but
the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspiration in making those
claims." Drs. Hodge and Warfield, The Presbyterian Review^ Vol. II,

P- 245-
^ See p. 12, and note i, p. '^2,

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 63

gave an absolutely errorless Bible, he gave no Bible at all.
Your people construe that to mean that unless you have an
absolutely errorless Bible, you have no Bible at all. What
have you or they gained ? I thank God that I am not shut
up to any such conclusion; and, most of all, I thank God
that when an inquiring soul comes to me with his difficulties,
I do not have to shut him up to any such conclusion. There
are spots on yonder sun ; do they Stop its being a sun ? Why,
science tells me that they are a part of the solar economy,
and that the sun is all the more a sun for the spots. How do
I know that it may not be so with the Bible ?

But the theory that all the errors in the text are surrep-
titious, that none of them are to be referred to the original
autographs, is one which honest criticism finds itself unable
to accept. Some of course might be accounted for in this
way, but that the vast majority, and especially that those
which present the most serious difficulties are later corrup-
tions, is utterly out of the question. I have already shown
how this theory fails us in the Gospels. Let us take one ex-
ample out of the Epistles. In Galatians iii : 17 Paul says
that the Law came 430 years after the Covenant with Abra-
ham. But according to three express historical statements
found elsewhere, to wit, God's prediction to Abraham (Gen.
XV ; 13), the statement of the book of Exodus (xii: 40), and
the statement of Stephen (Acts vii: 6), the sojourning of the
children of Israel in Egypt, and their bondage there contin-
ued 400, or 430 (so Ex. /. c) years, to which must be added
the 200 years between the covenant with Abraham and
Jacob's descent to Egypt, making more than 600 years from
the Abrahamic covenant to the giving of the Law. Accord-
ing to the Hebrew Bible, and according to Stephen, Paul's
chronology is at fault by about 200 years. And unfortu-
nately we are precluded from falling back here on that con-
venient abstraction, the original autograph, by the unques-
tionable fact that, according to his customary rule, Paul is

64 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

here following the Septuagint, which has added certain words
to the Hebrew text in Exodus (/. c) so as to make the 430
years include the sojourning in Canaan, along with the so-
journing in Egypt. Now as a question of criticism, biblical
and historical, I can not help believing that the Hebrew text'
and Stephen are right here, and that the Septuagint and Paul
are wrong. What am I to do ? If I instruct my class that
PauFs statement is infallibly inspired, I put Stephen in the
wrong, I have the Old Testament passages to explain, and I
have serious historical difficulties to remove. * Will you blame

^ Of these difficulties the most serious and the only one to which I
will now refer, lies in the extraordinary multiplication of the children
of Israel in Egypt. The facts of the case, as given in Genesis and
Exodus, are the following: i. The number of the Israelites at the
beginning of the sojourn in Egypt was seventy souls. Gen. xlvi : 27.
— 2. The number who went forth out of Egypt is given at "six hun-
dred thousand on foot that were men, beside children " (Ex. xii ; 37).
This would give about three millions for the entire number. — 3. This
remarkable increase had taken place under the most grievous oppres-
sion and bondage. Ex. i : 7-14. — 4. In the face also of concerted
methods of extermination. Ex. i : 15-22. Many of the negative crit-
ics of the Bible, basing their deductions on the traditional chronology
represented by the Septuagint, which limits the sojourn of the Israel-
ites in Egypt to 230 years, have questioned the entire narrative. So'
among others 6p. Colenso, who argued the case very skillfully and
forcibly from that point of view. Prof. W. H. Green, D.D., of Prince-
ton, in his book: **The Pentateuch vindicated from the aspersions of
Bp. Colenso," thus disposes of the argument. Respecting the Sept.
reading of Ex. xii: 40, he says: "The gloss thus put upon this pas-
sage in Exodus, as it seemed to have the authority of an inspired
apostle in its favor in Gal. iii : 17, and as the genealogy of Moses, Ex.
vi : 16-20, appeared to preclude the supposition that 430 years were
spent in Egypt, became the well nigh universal view of the case. It
still has its advocates, though the leading Biblical scholars of Europe have
abandoned it.^* On the passage in Galatians, Dr. Green says: "This
language of the apostle, however, does not appear to us to be decisive
of the point at issue. The interval of time is only incidentally men-
tioned. Precision of statement regarding it was of no consequence to his

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 65

me if, instead of putting an artificial forced construction on
such a passage in the interests of an a priori theory, I prefer a
straightforward, manly, sober, reverent view of the difficulty,
like that which Prof. Beet . has taken in his Commentary :
* * The above discussion warns us not to try to settle questions
of Old Testament his.torical criticism by casual allusions in the
New Testament. All such attempts are unworthy of scien-
tific Biblical scholarship. By inweaving his words to man in
historic fact, God appealed to the ordinary laws of human
credibility. These laws attest with absolute certainty the
great facts of Christianity. And upon these great facts, and
upon these .only, rest both our faith in the Gospel and in God,
and the authority of the Sacred Book. Consequently . . .
our faith does not require the absolute accuracy of every his-
torical detail in the Bible, and is not disturbed by any error
in detail which may be detected in its pages. At the same
time our study of the Bible reveals there an historical accu-
racy which will make us very slow to condemn as erroneous
even unimportant statements of Holy Scripture. And in spite
of any possible errors in small details or allusions, the Book
itself remains to us as — in a unique and infinitely glorious
sense — a literary embodiment of the Voice and Word of
God." I most heartily say Amen to every line of that state-
ment. It is the only tenable position to take.

argument J*"* And on the chronology itself Dr. Green delivers this
judgment: **The evidence is^ we think, conclusive that the abode in'
Egypt lasted /^yi years. This is the natural sense of Ex. xii : 40, and
none would ever think of extracting a different meaning fyom ity but for
reasons found outside of the verse itself . . . The verse makes no
allusion to Canaan, but only to Egypt." In a subsequent chapter he
shows how a term of 430 years in Egypt meets all the requirements of
the narrative touching the multiplication of the nation, etc. His
whole argument is a striking illustration of the fact that honest criti-
cism yields in the end the best apologetic results. See pp. 117 f.,
141 f., of *' The Pentateuch Vindicated."

5

6t) BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

This illustration brings up another point of importance in
Biblical criticism. I refer to the use made of the Old Testa-
ment in the New. Without going into detail, let me call at-
tention to the fact, that almost every possible way in which
an Old Testament passage can be cited, is adopted.^ As a
rule, the citations follow the Septuagint, sometimes closely,
sometimes loosely. Sometimes the Seventy as cited is an
exact translation of the original. Sometimes it is a free, but
faithful, rendering, giving the sense rather than the words.
Sometimes it is hardly a translation at all, but a paraphrase.
Sometimes it gives a sense quite different from the original.
In making the citation, the New Testament writer sometimes
quotes the Septuagint verbatim. Sometimes he changes a
word or two. Sometimes the change brings the passage into
closer conformity to the original Hebrew. Sometimes the
change introduces a variation both from the Hebrew and from
the Septuagint. Sometimes the writer gives a new translation
of the Hebrew, apparently his own. I appeal to every can-
did student of these facts, whether they comport with the
notion of a rigorous verbal infallibility. To my mind they
are quite conclusive of the contrary. Calvin himself, re-
ferring to the deviation of the Seventy, as cited in Heb. xi :
21 from the Massoretic Hebrew text, says of the Apostolic
use of the Old Testament : **The Apostle does not hesitate
to accommodate to his own purpose (^on dubiiat suo instituto
accomodare) what was commonly received. He wrote, in-
deed, to the Jews ; but to those who, being dispersed through
various countries,- had exchanged their national language for
Greek. We know that in such a matter the Apostles were
not very scrupulous (non adeo fuisse scrupulosos)^^^ by which
of course Calvin means that they were not careful about exacti-

1 See D. M. Turpie's The Old Testament in the New, p. 266 f.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 67

tude in all matters of detail. ** In the thing itself," he adds,
** there is but little difference." ^

I have thus far sought to show that, the theory of an
ipsissima verba infallibility in Scripture fails when brought
to the test of the best assured conclusions of criticism.
It remains to take a brief look at the positive side of
the question. For, allow me to say, that to us, even
as to you,, nay to us even more than it can be to you,
who say with I>s. Hodge and Warfield that **the es-

* ^ It may be well to add here that rigid in some respects as was Cal-
vin's dogma of inspiration as set forth in his Institutes^ though by no
means as rigid as the later dogma, his attitude became very much freer
when brought face to face with the particular problems of criticism.
So rationalistic, indeed, did his treatment of the Old Testament seem
to the more orthodox Lutherans of his day, that they charged him
with Judaizing. One of them calls him Calvinus Judaizans (Aeg.
Hunnius, Vit. 1593). Another accuses him of interpreting the passages'
about the Messiah and the Trinity in the sense of the Jews and the
Socinians (see reff. in Reuss, History of the N, 7"., g 550). To the
phrase, \va irXtjpuO^f in connection with O. T citations, he gave so
elastic an interpretation that this, too, was denounced as rationalistic.
(See Tholuck on Calvin as an Interpreter ^ Bibl. Repos. ii, p. 541 ff.)
He recognizes an occasional inaccuracy in the text. On Mat. xxvii :
9, he says : ** The passage itself plainly shows that the name of
Jeremiah has been put down by mistake instead of Zechariah.'' He
is, at least, not anxious to keep it out . of the original autograph.
** How the name of Jeremiah crept in, he says, I do not know, nor do
I give myself much trouble to xn^xx^ {nee anxie laboro)J*'' On Luke
xxiv: 36, and elsewhere, he recognizes contradictions, but uniformly
dismisses them as of no importance, leaving as they do the substance
of the narrative unaffected. He doubts the Petrine authorship of the
Second Epistle, and can not be prevailed upon to acknowledge Paul
as the author t)f the Epistle to the Hebrews {ego ut Paulum agnoscam
auciorem adduci nequeo), ** Only in his very earliest writings," says
Reuss {Hist, of the N. T., ? 335), "does he follow tradition." Ho
was, in fact, a pioneer of the Higher Criticism, and it is only too evi-
dent that if the question of confirming his election to one of our Bibli-
cal chairs were to come before us to-day, he would fail of getting a
unanimous vote.

68 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

sence of inspiration was superintendence," inspiration has
a very positive side; is a massive, all-controlling, over-
whelmingly predominant fact, throughout the very warp and
woof of the Bible from beginning to end. Inspiration is not
to be measured by the trifles which have passed under our re-
view. A trifle, to be sure, may be a fact ; and if a fact, it is
a sin to deny it, whether small as an atom or big as Jupiter.
And if anywhere we are to bow before the facts, -it is in the
sphere of Divine truth. It is not, as Prof. Briggs says, a
pleasant task to point out errors in Scripture. We do it only,
as the interests of truth require, because we dare not handle
the word of God deceitfully. Nothing is worth saving that
can hot be saved honestly, not even that Book. But we are
at an infinite remove from taking these as the measure of the
Bible. Cromwell showed his manliness in ordering the
painter to put in his portrait the wart on his face ; but who
would dream of judging Cromwell by his wart ? What are
these trifling inaccuracies in 'Scripture when compared with
the Burden of the Book? If one of the Gospel records
varies from another in respect to the details of a miracle,
what difference does it make if the Miracle remains ? If there
are minor incongruities in the narratives of Christ's appear-
ances after his resurrection, is not the Fact of his resurrection
made all the more certain even by these incongruities ? If
Paul did — in very respectable company, too — make a mistake
of two hundred years in stating his argument to the Galatians,
what has that to do with the argument ? Does it weaken in
the slightest the sledge-hammer blow with which he crushes
Jewish legalism dead forever ? If Stephen transposes certain
Old Testament incidents, or confuses certain names, does
that affect the convicting power of his terrific arraignment of
an apostate Israel? Was not the power of the Holy Ghost
in every word that he spoke, even when least accurate?^

' It is one of the pitiful subterfuges of the mechanical theory that
Stephen was not, or may not have been inspired. Luke, forsooth, in,

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 69

Suppose that one of his hearers had undertaken to reply to
him, saying : * * You have said that Abraham left Haran
after the death of his father, Terah; whereas, if you study
the figures in Genesis, you will find, that Terah must have
lived fifty years or more in Haran after Abraham left. You
were mistaken also in saying that Abraham bought the
sepulcher of the sons of Hamor in Shechem. If you look
into the matter a little more closely, you will find that that
was Jacob, and that Abraham bought his purchase at Hebron
of Ephron the Hittite." But would that have silenced
Stephen? Such a criticism on such a speech would have
been like flinging a feather in the teeth of a cyclone.

God has not been afraid to' commit the excellency of his
treasure to earthen vessels. He is not alarmed lest the weak-
ness of the vessel should be a damage to the treasure. He
has not shrunk from risking his truth on the liabilities of tradi-
tions, translations, transcriptions, and their inevitable accom-
paniments of fallibility. He has not been concerned lest the
popular misconceptions of a pre-Copernican astronomy, or of

his account of the external circumstances attending the discourse, was
inspired, but Stephen not ! And this in face of all that the inspired
Luke says about Stephen, that he was "full of grace and power"
(Ac. vi: 8) ; that his opponents "were not able to withstand the wis-
dom and the Spirit by which he spake " (vi : loj: that during this
same address, ** all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on
him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel '* (vi: 15); that
his unbelieving hearers were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on
him with their'teeth " (vii: 54); that at the close, Stephen himself,
" being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven and
saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God "
(vii : 55 f). This man's inspiration, an open question at the least, to
be denied if the exigencies of an infinitesimal literalistic inspiration
requires it; but the words of the annalist, who thus introduces the dis-
course: "And the high priest said, Are these things so? And he
said," potent with the essence itself of inspiration — supervision ! Is
not such a theory self-condemned ?

70 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

a pre-Lyellian geology, or of a pre-Linnaean botany should
compromise his Revelation of Himself. I thank God that it
is so. I rejoice that Divine as is the Book, Divine as no other
book is, it is still so thoroughly human, so beautifully threaded
with the fiber of human nerve, thought, and sensibility, so
sweetly veined with the crimsoned channels of the heart's
blood, life, and experience. . I rejoice that, supernatural as it
is, supernatural as no other book is, it is still so thoroughly
natural, that its literary life and growth blend so lovingly
and harmoniously with the currents and processes of the
world's divinely appointed life and growth. I rejoice that
God when he speaks in tlje language of earth and by the
mouth of his servants comes so low down that he is not
ashamed to use bad grammar, is not afraid of a barbarism
or a solecism, does not shrink from an archaism, or an
anachronism, does not disdain an antediluvian setting for
the doctrine of the Creation or the Fall, or what a scientist
might derisively call a Kindergarten formula for the truth of
Providence, or the Judgment. He does not hang eternal
issues on details that are relatively insignificant. He has not
so poised the Rock of Ages that the Higher or Lower Crit-
icism, with pick-ax or crow-bar, digging out a chronological
inaccuracy here, or prying off" a historical contradiction there,
is going to upset it. The critic may be all right, the crow-
bar may be all r%ht, but the Rock of Ages is all right, too,
and it will stand fast forever. Do not, I beseech you, charge
upon God the priggish precision which makes as much of a
mole-hill as of a mountain. God does not care to be hon-
ored in that way. Do not degrade him by requiring that
he should poise before his earthly children as an intolerant,
if not intolerable, Pedant, who insists on his fs and q^s with
no less vigor and pertinacity than on his godhke SHEMA —
'*Hear, O Israel!" or on his everlasting AMEN — "Verily,
verily, I say unto you !"

But what of the positive bearing of the conclusions of crit-

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 71

icism on our conception of inspiration ? Take <?. g. its con-
clusions in respect to the structure and contents of the
Synoptic Gospels. What do they teach us as to the fact of
inspiration ? They teach us that it is a much larger fact than
the scholastic notion which resolves it into mere supervision.
Its scope is much wider. It is the note of a supernatural
age ; an age in which supernatural forces were at work on an
■extensive scale ; in which supernatural facts had been wit-
nessed by multitudes, and had stamped their impressions on
thousands of living souls; an age when supernatural charis-
mata abounded in the church ; an age of miracles, of super-
. natural healings, of supernatural tongues. It was pre-emi-
nently an age of prophetic inspiration, in which the Old Tes-
tament predictions were fulfilled : * * And it shall be in the last
days, saith God, I will pour forth of my spirit upon all flesh ;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your
young men shall see visions. And your old men shall dream
dreams ; Yea, and on my servants and on my handmaidens
in those days will I pour forth of my Spirit ; And they shall
prophesy. " ^ It was an age in which there was an order of
prophets in the church and a gift of prophesying in the
churches. It was an age when Luke could say that
^^ many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning
these matters which have been fulfilled [or fully established]
among us;" an age which furnished Luke with that inimitable
story of the Infancy, written nobody knows by whom, per-
haps, as Alford suggests, by Mary, the mother of our Lord,
but as plenarily inspired, before Luke ever got hold of* it, as
any thing that Peter or John ever wrote ; an age which fur-
nished the fragment at the end of Mark, written nobody
knows by whom, but attesting itself to the consciousness of
the Church to-day as throughout the centuries as the inspired

^ Acts, ii : 14 f.

72 , BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

Word of God, as truly and as fully such as all of Mark ; ^ an
age which furnished the pericope of the woman taken in
adultery, written nobody knows by whom, but as full of Jesus
as the diamond is full of the sun;* an age of inspired
Christian hymns, some of which have found their way into
the record, sung nobody knows by whom, but sweet and
grand as the apocalyptic melodies of heaven's own Alleluias ; *
an age when, as the appendix to John's Gospel declares, if
all the facts known respecting Christ were written, the world
itself would not contain the books that should be written ; an
age when we know not how many inspired records and epis-
tles were written and lost ; * an age which built up mighty
Christian traditions, not like the dead, dry petrifactions of
Judaism, but fresh, living, burning traditions, to which the
Apostles could appeal as instinct with vital energy and au-
thority.** Think you that in such an age there would be any
lack of inspiration for building up the Gospel record ? Look at
the quantity and the quality of the inspiration which this view
gives you ; not the pedantic, pedagogical supervision of * * jots
and tittles," but the grand, living expression of ** the powers of
the World to Come f not an occasional spurt or spasm, but a
great dynamic, ecumenical fact ; not the flow of a few Arte-
sian wells, but a mighty tide, surging out of the great super-

^ See Revised Version at Mark, xvi : 9 f.

* See Revised Version at John, vii : 53-viii: 1 1.

' See I Cor. xiv: 26 ; Col. iii : 16 ; Eph. v : 19. See exx. in the songs
of Mai:y, Zacharias, and Simeon (Lk. i: 46 f., 67 f.; ii : 29 f. in Revised
Version and Westcott and Hort ; also, Eph. v : 14 ; i Tim. iii : 16, in
Westcott and Hort. Cf. Acts, iv : 24 f. See Winer's Grammar of the
N. T. Diction, § 68, 3, 4.

* See. I Cor. v : 9 ; 2 Cor. x : 10 ; xi : 28 ; 2 Thes. ii: 15 ; iii- 17 ; Phil,
iii: 18; (Col. iv : 16? more probably the extant Ep. to the Ephesians);
3 John, ill : 9. See Salmon's Introduction to the N. T., Lecture XX.

* See Luke, i: 2; i Cor. xi: 2, 23 ; 2 Thes. ii: 15 ; iii: 61 2 Tim. i:
13 ; 2 Peter, ii: 21 ; iii : 2 ; Jude, 3, 17.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 73

natural deep. What a broad, impregnable base you have
here for the Gospel record ! What a great cloud of witnesses !
What palpable energy and vitality of conviction palpitating
through every line of the manifold testimony ! What over-
whehning, convincing power in the consentaneous strength
of the Gospel witness to its own transcendent facts, when this
witness is found to rest on no artificial support, is secured by
no mechanical uniformity, but comes to us through what
Prof. Beet calls **the ordinary laws of human credibility,"
bearing these marks of honesty, independence, frankness,
individuality, spontaneity, internal verisimilitude, which every-
where and always guarantee the truth of human testimony !
Is it not the claim and glory of the Gospel Story that it
combines the dignity and authority of a heavenly recital with
the piquant frankness, the homelike naivete of the conversa-
tional fireside tale, here and there, it may be, contradicting
itself in small matters, breaking out into artless variations
and impulsive inconsistences, but all the more surely thereby
winning its way to the faith and love of the heart ?

The most important question of all still remains to be con-
sidered. What is inspiration — not in itself, but as a fact, as
a characteristic of the Bible? In giving my answer to this
question, I know no better course to take than to follow the
line of thought in the First Chapter of our Confession of
Faith, perhaps the noblest Chapter in that immortal docu-
ment. Let me ask your attention to what is most essential in
that magnificent statement of the truth respecting Scripture.
** Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and
providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and
power of God, as to leave men inexcusable ; yet they are not
sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will,
which is necessary unto salvation." Let us ponder that state-
ment a moment. Why was Scripture given ? The answer
of our Confession is: Because !*tl\e light of nature was not
sufficient." Sufficient for what? **To give [a certain]

74 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

knowledge." Knowledge of what ? Of botany ? chemistry ?
geography ? By no means. The light of nature is sufiicient
for that. It is not sufficient however ''far the knoutledge 0¥
God "—that Great Infinite Being with whom as spiritual im-
mortal beings we have to do; ''and of his will"— that ex-
pression of God's eternal thoughts and purpose which most
essentially concerns our spiritual welfare and our eternal des-
tiny; and still more explicitly, **not sufficient for /^d:/ knowl-
edge of God which is necessary" — for what? For science?
for art? for civilization? necessary to fill a cyclopaedia? to
equip a college graduate ? — nay, ** but which is necessary unto
SALVATION. " What is all secular knowledge compared with
' ' that knowledge of God which is necessary unto salvation ? "
That was the great need of the world ; it was to supply that
need that when the light of nature failed man, God inter-
posed. "Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, ^ and
in divers manners TO REVEAL HIMSELF ;" mark that !
Not in the first instance to give a book, not to transmit a rev-
elation about Himself, not to write, or cause to be written, a
series of definitions, logical categories, abstract propositions
relating to his person, his nature, his attributes; but "to re-
veal Himself " — actually, factually, in living deed, as well as
by the living word ; by Theophanies, by Covenants, by Dis-
pensations; by orders, institutions, structures, legislative, ad-
ministrative, civil, religious; by sacrifices and sacraments,
Urim and Thummim, blood and Shekinah ; by mediations of
grace and life most various, touching, and sublime, didactic,
devotional, priestly, prophetic; by dream, vision, psalm,
symbol, type, miracle — a golden chain of divine manifesta-
tions and interpositions reaching down through the centuries;
every new link charged with more of God — God in it all —
God Himself— God in person ; the Power of God, the Heart
of God, the Life of God in every thing ; and all for salva-

' Rev. Version, **by divers portions."

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 75

TION ! Emphasize that again ! Revelation and Redemption —
twin divinities, advancing together, side by side, step by step,
every step ablaze with Deity ! the Divine Processes widening
with the suns, more, and more, and ever more of God in
every thing until at last the climax is reached — the Word be-
comes flesh ; the Son of God is born on earth, lives — suffers —
dies — rises again — ascends to the right hand of the Majesty
on high, to reign King , of Kings, and Lord of Lords, God
blessed forever. Amen !

Here in these great Facts, these great historic processes,
these theophanies of glory, these miracles of power and love,
these supernatural interventions of redeeming Grace, we have
God revealing Himself. That precisely, as dur Confession
puts it, is the primal fact. Here you have the material of the
Word of God, the stuff of inspiration, the substance of the
Gospel. Paul's definition of the Gospel is just that: **The
Power of God unto Salvation." Not a thing of power, not
a mighty system, not a tremendous engine, but £>unamis,
Power, God's Power, Personal Qmnipotence, at work as
Omnipotence, saving the world. ** My Father worketh hith-
erto, and I worky That is Redemption. That is Revela-
tion for Redemption. The life of the Revelation is there,
the power of the Revelation is there, in that Divine Working ;
not in words, not in definitions, not in abstract statements —
how much of God can ygu put into words ? How much of
the Eternal can you pack into a definition ? How much of
the Infinite can you squeeze into a dogma ? — No, not in these,
but in those stupendous supernatural forthputtings of God
Himself, which blazon their way all along from Eden to
Golgotha. *

So much for the first step— .-the redemptive revelation of
Himself by God. **It pleased the Lord," first of all, thus
**to reveal himself, and to declare his will unto his Church.'*
What next? **And afterward,^^ mark the order, the depend-
ence, and the purpose, ** and afterward for the better preserv-

76 -BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

ing and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure es.
tablishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption
of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to
commit the same wholly unto writing, which maketh the holy
scripture to be most necessary ; those former ways of God's
revealing his will unto his people being now ceased." The
Bible is thus the written record of the revelation. What,
then, is the object of the record ? Generically and primarily
the object of the record is the same with the object of
the revelation, to wit: Salvation. Specifically the record
is given for three purposes subordinate to the great
generic purpose : (i) To interpret the revelation, or, in the
language of the Confession, **to declare God's will" in the
revelation. For man, alas! is ignorant, blinded, besotted
by sin, and needs to have this wondrous Divine Drama of
Redemption explained. (2) To perpetuate the revelation:
** those former ways of God's revealing his will having now
ceased." (3) To apply the revelation ; or to make it effectual
against the trinity of evil^ the world, the flesh, and Satan;

What now is the function of inspiration ? In a word, it is
to -mediate the revelation; to interpret, J:o record, to apply
it; to put us, to put all generations, under the immediate
power of those Divine Realities ; so far as possible to bring
us face to face with this incomparable drama of Power and
Love Divine, face to face with God revealing Himself. All
through the ages the Spirit of God was teaching one and
another to understand, to interpret, to record, to apply that
wondrous process. There, then, you have the revela-
tion; here the inspiration. There the supernatural history;
here the supernatural record. There the fact ; here the story.
There Sinai; here Exodus. There Bethlehem, Galilee, Cal-
vary, Olivet; here Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. There
Pentecost; here the Acts. And as the Revelation was
building, so the Book was building. As that became high
and broad, this became rich and full. And so the Book

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 77

became the double of the deed. By the divine correlation
of energy, the life and power of the one became the life and
power of the other. The Facts burn in the Words. The
living History throbs in the living Record. And so to-day,
and throughout all time, in all that makes the Bible the
power of God unto salvation, it is the Voice of God, the
Word of God, the supreme, the only, the infallible au-
thority.^

That is what the Bible teaches concerning itself. It is part
of the supernatural, divine process of saving a/» lost world, of
rehabilitating a ruined humanity. Inspiration is the formal
factor in that process, as Revelation is the material factor.
Thus regarded I have no hesitation in saying that the Bible is
inspired wholly, inspired through and through. The men are
inspired, as Prof. Stowe said. The thoughts are inspired, as
Prof. Briggs says. The words are inspired, as Prof. Hodge
has said. These are * * the sacred writings which are able to
make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Jesus
Christ.^'' ** Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for discipline which
is in righteousness ; that the man of God may be complete,
furnished completely unto every good work." That is what
inspiration is for, for training and completing in the divine
life. How can error in chronology, or physical science, affect
that process? ** The words that I have spoken unto you are
spirit, and are life." Yes! in these inspired words there is a

^ I take pleasure in referring to the admirable statement of this his-
' toric and literary relation of Revelation and Inspiration in Drs. Hodge
and Warfield's Article on Inspiration in the Presbyterian Review, Vol.
II. For more complete and systematic discussion of the subject, see
Dr. G. P. Fisher's Nature and Object of Revelation (Scribner : N.
York); Dr. A. B. Bruce: The Chief End of Revelation (Hodder &
Stoughton) ; Dr. G. T. Ladd : The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture^ and
What is the Bible (C. Scribner's Sons, N. Y.) ; Dr. W. Sanday: The
Oracles 0/ God (hongma.nSt Green &Co.).

78 , BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

divine pneumatic power such as no other words have. They
are Spirit-words, Life-words. ''Which things we teach, not
in words that man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit
teacheth." What things ? Read the context. <* Whatever
things God prepared for them that love him." **The deep
things of God." '*The things that were freely [graciously]
given to us of God." These are the things about which In-
spiration concerns itself. God's things, God's deepest things,
God's best things, the things which have the most, the best,
the deepest o^God in them. ''These things," says the Apos-
tle of God in them, **we teach in words which the Spirit of
God teacheth." Most assuredly! Who can doubt it? I
believe in that declaration of Paul's with all my heart. I
could not help believing it if Paul had never said it. As I
read what the Bible says about God, about Christ, about the
Spirit, about man, sin, salvation, about holiness, duty, life,
death, eternity, I feel to the depths of my being that the
very words thrill with divinity ; they glow with the ardors of
the heaven above me ; they are instinct with the power of an
endless life; the majesty of eternity is in their rhythm; deep
calleth unto deep in the thunders of their diapason ; the pathos
of the blessed Comforter is in their stillest smallest voice : the
very balm of Paradise is shed upon them ; even upon their
anomalies rests the glory of the Shekinah ; as they pass before
my eye they are radiant with the One Altogether Lovely; as
they echo in my heart-strings they are vocal with God.

It is most strange to me that our theologies have not before
now found the secret of inspiration in that transcendent pas-,
sage of Paul from which I have just cited a few lines ; the
clearest, the fullest, the profoundest treatment of the subject
that has ever been given. Let me give the whole passage
(i Cor. ii: 6-16): '*Howbeit we speak wisdom among them
that are fully grown : yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of
the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought : but we
speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 79

been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto
our glory : which none of the rulers of this world hath known ;
for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory : but as it is written : things which eye saw not, and
ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man,
whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.
But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit : for the
Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For
who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit
of the man, which is in him ? even so the things of God none
knoweth, save the Spirit of God. But we received not the
spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God ; that we
might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wis-
dom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spir-
itual things with spiritual woi;ds [or, mg. — interpreting spirit-
ual things to spiritual men]. Now the natural [or : unspiritual,
Gr. psychical] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God : for they are foolishness unto him ; and he can not know
them, because they are spiritually judged [or, examined]. But
he that is spiritual judgeth [or, examineth] all things, and he
himself is judged [or, examined] of no man. For who hath
known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him ?
But we have the mind of Christ."

That is inspiration. How then shall we characterize it?
"Verbal" inspiration? **Supervisional?" ** Official?" ** Ple-
nary?" ** Dynamic?" Why not take Paul's word at once,
which sums up what is most real in all these de^signations ?
** Pneumatic Inspiration!" There you have it all. There
you have not only Paul's word, but Christ's. • **The words
that I have spoken unto you are Pneuma.^^ Make that your
watchword, and you^can hold the fort against all comers.

Pneumatic Inspiration : what does it mean ?

I. The Spirit of God is the primary, the vital, the essen-
tial factor.

80 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

2. The Spirit of man is the coefficient; that in man which is
the organ of God, and of all Divine Reality.

3. The contents of inspiration axe pneu?natic realiiies. And
what does the Apostle say of these? i. They have their
foundations in the depths of the Godhead. They are **the
deep things of God." ii. They are above and beyond all
secular science. **Not of this world [or, age: aicov^ saecu-
luni\, iii. They are the embodiment of a Divine Philosophy.
*' We speak God's Wis.dom." iv. They are attained through
a divine initiation. **In a mystery." v. They date from the
past eternity. ** Foreordained before the worlds." vi. They
fill the future eternity. *' Prepared for them that love him."
vii. They are supra-sensual. ^^Eye saw not, ear heard not.''
viii. They are supra-psychical. **The natural [psychical] man
receiveth them not." ix. They are supra-rational. ** Which
entered not into the heart of man." x. They are the pecu-
liar province of the Spirit, who ** explores the depths of God."
**None knoweth them save the Spirit of God." xi. They are
freighted with Divine Grace. ** Freely given to us of God."
xii. They culminate in spiritual perfection. **Unto our
glory."

4. The processes by which they are apprehended are pneu-
matic. **They are spiritually judged."

5. The utterances, by which they are expressed, are pneu-
matic, theopneustic. **In words which the Spirit teacheth."
** Combining spiritualities with spiritualities."

6. And to crown all this all-pervading, all-assimilating
Pneuma is the Mind of the Lord. * * We have the mind of
Christ."

Pneumatic inspiration ! Is it not just that ? Do you ask
for characteristics of inspiration ? There they are. Tests of
inspiration? What more could you wish for? Safeguards
of inspiration ? Are these not enough ? If these will not
guarantee the inspiration of the Bible, what Will ? Accord-
ing to our Confession, the inspiration of Scripture is a self-

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 81

witnessing fact. * * We may be moved and induced by the
testimony of the Church to a high and revered esteem for
the holy Scripture ; and the heavenliness of the matter, the
efficacy of the dodtrine, the majesty of the style, the consent
of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all
glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of
man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies,
and the entire, perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it
doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet,
notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the in-
fallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward
work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness, by and with the
word, in our hearts." **The Supreme Judge, ... in
whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy
Spirit, speaking in the Scriptures."^ Does not that which is
of the Spirit evidence itself? With this pneumatic concept
tion of the Book, can we be in doubt about the inspiration,
about the quality, contents, scope, purpose of the inspiration ?
Can we have any trouble about verifying it ? The Bible is a
pneumatic Book. The groundwork, the substance, all that
makes the Book what it is, is pneumatic.^ The warp and
woof of it \% pneuma. Its fringes run off, as was inevitable,
into the secular, the material, the psychic. Can we not, as
persons of common intelligence even, much more with the
internal witness of the Spirit to aid us, discriminate between
the fringe and the warp and woof? Do not the ** spirit-
ualities" and the **heavenlinesses " of Scripture distinguish
themselves from all that is lower, as the steady shining of the
everlasting stars from the fitful gleaming of earth's fire-flies ?

^ The Confession of Faith, Chap. I, Sees. V, X. Compare The
Larger Catechism, Qu. 2, 3, 4, and answers.

* See The Larger Catechism, Qu. 5 (The Shorter Catechism, Qu. 3)
and answer. **^«. What do the Scriptures principally teach ? Ans.
The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God,
and what duty God requires of man."

6

82 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

Even if the task of discriminating were immeasurably harder
than it is, we should not complain. God lays on us in many-
matters, in matters, too, of great practical moment, the re-
sponsibility of separating the things that differ. ** Why even
of yourselves judge ye not what is right ? " This responsi-
bility is a part of lifers discipline. It is not God's way to do
all our thinking for us. His training is not a process of
cram.

Let me ask your attention to these weighty words of Mr.
Gladstone: **No doubt there will be those who will resent
any association between the idea of a Divine Revelation and
the possibility of even the smallest intrusion of error in the
vehicle. But ought they not to bear in mind that we are
bound by the rule of reason to look for the same methods, of
procedure in this grjeat matter of a special provision of Divine
knowledge for our needs as in the other parts of the manifold
dispensation under which Providence has placed us ? Now,
that method or principle is one of sufficiency, not perfection ;
of sufficiency for the attainment of practical ends, not of
conformity to ideal standards. Bp. Butler, I think, would
wisely tell us that we are not the judges, and that we are
quite unfit to be the judges, what may be the proper amount,
and the just condition of any of the aids to be afforded us in
passing through the discipline of life. I will only remark
that this default of ideal perfection, this use of a twilight in-
stead of a noonday blaze, may be adapted to our weakness,
and may be among the appointed means of exercising our
faith. But what belongs to the present occasion is to point
out that if probability and not demonstration marks the
divine guidance of our paths in life as a whole, we are not
entitled to require that when the Almighty in his mercy
makes a special addition by revelation to what he has^ already
given to us of knowledge in Nature and in Providence, that
special gift should be unlike his other gifts, and should have

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 83

all its lines and limits drawn out with mathematical pre-
cision."^ i

That is, the only rational, the only philosophic, the only
Scriptural ground to take. It is the ground of our Con-
fession. The inspiration of the Bible is pneumatic, not
psychic, not secular. The infallibility of the Bible is pneu-
matic, not psychic, not secular. It is the infallibility of prac-
tical sufficiency, not the infallibility of absolute ideality. It
is an "infallible rule," standard measure. What does that
mean ? I have a yard-stick, a three-foot rule. As such it is
perfect, all sufficient. If I make a mistake in measuring
yards or feet with it, it will be altogether my own fault. And
yet, perhaps, it is notched, it is cracked, some of the inch
lines are blurred ; one or two may possibly be slightly inexact.
If I were to apply the microscope to it, I should no doubt
find flaws in it. If I were to. try it for microscopic measure-
ments, it would fail me. But, as a yard-stick, as a three-foot
measure, it' is infallible. So with the Bible. Its infallibility
is not a microscopic infinitesimal infallibility respecting all
particular things in the heavens above or in the earth beneath,
or in the waters under the earth. It is an infallible rule of
faith; L e,, of Christian faith, of Gospel faith, of the faith
which is necessary to salvation.

That, as I have shown, is the teaching of Scripture itself.
That is plainly the teaching of our Confession. It is so in-
terpreted by the most competent authorities. Dr. Laidlaw,
Professor of Theology in the New College in Edinburgh, in a
recent address on **The Westminster Confession in the
light of the present desire for revision," speaking of the
Chapter on the Scriptures, says that **it refrains from de-
tailed specification as to the authorship, age, or literary char-
acter of the canonical books. Not making these matters

^ The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture. By W. E. Gladstone.
Philadelphia, J. D. Wattles, p. ii f.

84 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

essential to faith, it thus leaves open what has been called,
perhaps rather broadly, the whole field of Biblical Criticism.
It deals in the same manner with all details as to mode and
degree of inspiration, which could be consistently left open
by those who accept the Scriptures as the infallible rule of
faith and duty. Once more, while claiming for the original
Scriptures such immediate inspiration and such providential
care as fits them for their purpose, it has refrained from such
assertion of verbal inerrancy as Biblical scholarship dis-
allows."^

The leaders of English and Scotch Presbyterianism are
well nigh a unit on this point. Dr. Blaikie, the President of
the Presbyterian Alliance, and of whom I need say no more,
was solicited last year to sign a paper condemning the views
of Dr. Bruce and Dr. Dods. He declined to do so on the
ground that while strongly maintaining the fact of inspiration,
he could not accept the rigid view which takes inspiration to
mean inerrancy. ''Well known facts in the actual structure
and contents of Scripture seem to me to forbid it."* Dr.
Rainy is well known as Principal of the Free College of
Edinburgh and the leader of the Free Church. Last year,
in a speech in the Free Assembly, he thus defined his per-
sonal position. I quot^ from an abstract in the British
Weekly of June 6, 1890: *' He started with the inerrancy
cf Scriptures, even in details, as that which he was inclined
to hold. Only he refused to impose it on others ; out and
out he refused to do so, especially upon his students. He
did so partly because he thought such matters despicable, but
also because Scripture itself did not seem to have it
much at heart to make them sure of accuracy of this kind ;
rather, it seemed conspicuously to refuse to do so, and any
quotations to the contrary were mistakes." In the English

' British Weekly^ November 13, 1890, p. 34.
' British Weekly ^ October 30, 1890, p. 3.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 85

Presbyterian Church, during the recent discussions of the
New Confession of Faith, Principal Dykes, of the Presby-
terian College in London, the leading theologian of the
Church, Dr. Munro Gibson, who is accepted as the incoming
Moderator, and other leaders, pronounced decisively against
the theory of inerrancy. Two years ago, when Dr. Dods
was nominated for the Exegetical Chair of New College,
Edinburgh, declarations like the following were quoted
against him: " I believe the Scriptures contain an infallible
rule of faith and life. I believe they are the authoritative
records of the revelations which God has made, but it is
impossible to affirm that all the statements contained in
Scripture are strictly accurate, impossible, that is, to claim
for Scripture an absolute infallibility." He was elected by an
overwhelming majority. That is enough tQ show where the
Free Church stands on th^ particular issue.

Brethren, our Church can not afford to go beyond Scripture,
beyond our own Confession, or beyond our sister churches,
on this question. We hear abouf "dangerous errors," views
and utterances which tend to unsettle faith. Let me tell you
where the danger lies, as it confronts me in my work from
year to year. It lies in putting the Bible in a false position,
in claiming for it what it does not claim for itself. It lies in
a priori assumptions respecting inspiration and infallibility,
which are not borne out by the facts. It lies in holding up
your iron-clad dogma of verbal inspiration and literalistic in-
fallibility against the advances made by an humble, prayerful,
. reverent investigation and criticism of Scripture as the Word
of God. I have nothing to say in behalf of a bald agnostic,
materialistic naturalism, or of an arbitrary, capricious ration-
alism, which, with a priori dogmatism, denies the superna-
tural, belittles or expunges sin and salvation, eliminates out
of history God's Revelation of Himself, evaporates out of
the Bible its pneumatic inspiration, chops up its contents into
lifeless fragments, and sweeps away book after book into the

86 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

abyss of legend and myth. When the Biblical Criticism of
our theological seminaries is found to be engaged in that
business, when it comes in conflict with the Bible's own
claims to pneumatic inspiration, then it will be time to sound
the alarm, then it will be time for action. But on the other
hand, a dogma of inspiration, and of the authority of Scrip-
ture, which, in its mistaken zeal, refuses to recognize accom-
plished results, antagonizes the most enlightened, devout, and
believing Biblicaf scholarship of the day, puts the ban on all
inquiry which will not bow to its rigid literalism and mechan-
icahsm, such a dogma is in our day, whatever it may have
been in the past, an obstruction to faith, a menace to the
unity and peace of .the Church, an arrest of the healthy
growth of Christian science, and a serious blight on ^he free,
robust, symmetrical development of th^ Christian life. You
protest against the unsettling of fi^ith. You do well. But
they also do well who protest against keeping up needless
barriers to faith. You condemn criticism which destroys be-
lief in the Scriptures as the' Word of God. But beware of
including in your condemnation the criticism which helps to
make such belief in the Scriptures possible. You may be
sure that as long as you tie up faith in the Bible with faith in
a secul^ inspiration, as long as you hang the infallible au-
thority of Scripture as the rule of faith on the infallible accu-
racy of every particular word and clause in the Book, as long
as you exalt the Bible to the same pinnacle of authority in
matters respecting which God has given us clearer, fuller,
more exact revelations elsewhere, as in matters respecting
which the Bible is the only revelation, the irrepressible con-
flict between faith and science will go on, and the Drapers
and Whites of each generation will have their new chapters
to add to the record. Every new discovery in science ot in
archaeology that seems to contradict some particular statement
will produce a panic. Every advance in criticism will tend
to unsettle the faith of somebody whom your teaching has led

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 87

to confound the form with the substance. Having learned
from you that the shell is part of the kernel, and finding that
he can not keep the shell,- he will end by throwing away both
shell and kernel.

For one I mean to do my part in putting an end to this
mistaken defense of Divine Revelation. Shipwrecks of faith
without number have been caused by it. It is the very thing,
according to his own confession, that made an unbeliever of
the most brilliant scholar of France, perhaps of the world to-
day, Ernest Renan. > It is very thing that drove into infidelity
the Wrongest champion of the popular infidelity of England,
who died the other day in his unbelief, Charles Bradlaugh.
So testifies his own brother, a believer. But for this the iri-
descent declamation of Robert IngersoU in our own country,
with his ** Mistakes of Moses," would collapse like a pricked
balloon. The Christianity of our day can not afford to fight
the battle of the Book along that line. The Presbyterianism
of our country can not afford to put itself in antagonism to
the most enlightened as well as devout Christian scholarship
of the day. It can not afford to put the yoke of bondage to
an exploded relic of post-Reformation scholasticism on the
consciences of our young men, alive as they are to the gains
of reverent and careful study of the Book, and sensitive as
they can not fail to be to the humiliation of such bondage.
It can not afford to silence the larger, profounder, more Scrip-
tural restatements of revealed truth made imperative by im-
proved methods of Biblical research. Nor can it afford to
precipitate any issue on our churches, the surest result of
which will be to foment suspicion, to drive out the spirit of
charity and of justice, to gender misunderstanding and alien-
* ation between our chairs of instruction and our pulpits and
pews, and to widen the gap between honest inquiry and earn*
est faith.

88 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION

CHAPTER IV.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

II. — By Henry Preserved Smith,

The natural theory concerning an inspired book is illus-
trated by the Mohammedans. The prophet of Mecca, in his
observation of Jews and Christians (in whom he recognized
worshipers of the true God) discovered their Scriptures to be
the source of their religion. ^ He classified them therefore as
"book-people," and endeavored to construct a similar saci;ed
code for his own followers. The result is the Koran, whose
contrast with the Bible is in many respects remarkable.
Throughout this book God appears as the speaker. Its con-
tents are made known to the prophet by direct revelation, and
it is never tired of emphasizing its own infallibility. Yet the
discrepancies are so marked that they did not escape the no-
tice of the author himself, and he propounded the theory,
afterward elaborated by the commentators, that a later revela-
tion must abrogate an earlier one. He confessed forgetful-
ness also,* and in one instance avowed that Satan had insinu-
ated a false revelation into his mind.^

I 1 * 'Whatever verses We cancel or cause thee to forget, We give thee
better in their stead, or the like thereof." — Koran, II, loo, quoted by
SirWilliam Muir, The Cor&n, p. 41.

' The ** two Satanic verses," cf. Muir, Life of Mahomet (1877), p,
86 sqq.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 89

The transmission of this book is well known. No particu-
lar care was taken of the revelations during the author's life,
or for some time after his death. As the number of his
*' companions" was diminished by death, the danger of losing
the revelations became evident, and with the lapse of time
discrepancies in the various readings became marked. War
threatened to break out between parties who swore allegiance
to different readings.* One of Mohammed's amanuenses
was therefore commissioned to collect the fragments ** from
date-leaves and tablets of white stone, and from the breasts
of men," to which other traditions add from fragments
of parchment or paper, pieces of leather, and the shoulder
or rib-))ones of camels or goats. As this standard text was
corrupted by careless copyists, probably under the influence
of still living tradition, the Caliph Othman had an authorized
edition made by a committee of scholars. "Transcripts [of
this] were multiplied and forwarded to the chief cities in the
empire, and the previously existing copies were all, by the
Caliph's command, committed to the flames."* The text was
still unvocalized, the points not being added until about fifty
year^ later.

Now the point I wish to make is this : We have full knowl-
edge of these details concerning the Koran ; we know its dis-
crepancies, its careless editing, the violent means taken to
secure uniformity in its text, the late origin of its vowel points ;
t;he Arab scholars know these also, for it is from them that we
get the information. Yet the Arab theory maintains the fol-
lowing points :

1. The Koran is eternal in its original essence and a neces-
sary attribute of God.

2. It was written down in heaven on a ** treasured tablet,"

^ Or dififerent wordings, for the transmission was still largely oral,
s Muir, Mahomet, p. 557.

y

90 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

from which it was communicated piecemeal to Mohammed by
the angel Gabriel.

3. It is written in an Arabic style which is perfect and un-
approachable. *'Th€ best of Arab writers has never suc-
ceeded in producing its equal in merit."-

4. Every syllable is of directly divine origin. This in-
cludes the "unintelligible combinations of letters put at the
head of certain Suras.

5. Its text is incorruptible, "and preserved from error and
variety of reading by the miraculous interposition of God
himself" To account, however, for the slight variants which
actually exist, the Koran is said to have been revealed in
seven dialects.

6. As being the truth of God, it is the absolute authority,
not only in religion and ethics, but also in law, science, and
history.* •

The point I make is r This is the kind of Bible we should
like to hav^ God give us, and when we construct for our-
selves a theory of revelation we do it along these lines.
Allow me to illustrate by a brief review of theories which
have been held concerning the Old Testament. We natu-
rally begin here with the Jew.

First, however, let us remark that the clear distinction
which our theologians make between revelation and inspira-
tion is a comparatively modern distinction. Inspiration natu-
rally goes with revelation. It is the divine method of revela-
tion. A superintendence of the record as distinct from the
giving of the truth did not occur to the ancients, because
they did not reflect upon the record, except as containing the
truth. Revelation and mspiration then are not distinguished.
The earliest Jewish testimonies concern themselves with the

^ The authorities for these statements are, besides those already
quoted, Noldeke, ' Geschichte des Qorans ; " Hughes, Dictionary of
Islam ; Palmer, the Qur'^n (Sacred Books of the East, Vol. VI).

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 91

Law as contained in the book. This law seems to be identi-
fied with the heavenly Wisdom.* It is, therefore, as the Mo-
hammedan would say, one of the attributes of God. When
God would build the world, he looked upon the Tora as a builder
looks upon the plan of a building.^ This plan was delivered
into the hands of Moses at Sinai by the angels in the form of
a written book. This preference of the Law to the other
Scriptures is very natural to the Jew, and its consequence is
the distinction of two grades of inspiration. *' Holy Scripture
came into being by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is
therefore derived from God, who speaks therein. Neverthe-
less, there are within the Scripture different grades of inspira-
tion; in that the Law is the primary revelation, the other
Scriptures are secondary."

In inquiring into the history of this doctrine of inspiration,
we are struck, however, by the variety of opinion that has
prevailed. Although the Jews give a higher place to the
Law, yet at a later time they dignified the other books by
making them also a part of the revelation to Moses. * ^ Rabbi
Isaac said : * ' all that the prophets were to prophesy later they
received from Mt. Sinai, for so Moses declares, Deut. xxix:
i5." ^ On the other hand, that Ezra may not be deprived of
the glory belonging to him, later opinion made him the
author of the whole Hebrew Bible, it having been lost during
the captivity. So the Fourth Book of Esdras declares (xiv :
19-22) that the Law has been burned, and Ezra prays that it
may be restored by him. God grants his desire, ordering
him to provide five amanuenses. When he goes into the
open country with the amanuenses, God gives him a cup to
drink. When he has drunk, he dictates to the scribes the

* Sirach, XXIV, 22. The reference to Baruch, IV, i, given by
Weber, does not seem to assert the existence of the Law/r^ww eternity,
though it asserts that it will endure forever.

* Bereshith Rabba, I.

» Shemoth Rabba, XXVIII.

92 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

twenty-four books of the Old Testament and seventy others
which he is ordered to keep secret. The fact that such va-
rious views could be held shows how impossible it is to speak
of any established or settled view of revelation or of inspira-
tion at this early tiniie.

If we come down to the later period, however, we shall
discover a theory of inspiration which is definite enough,
though it still refuses to distinguish inspiration from revela-
tion. It starts with the Law as given at Mt. Sinai. It iden-
tifies this with the received text of the punctuators. It
affirms that even the form of the letters (Jitera finales^ beih at
the beginning of Genesis) was ordained by God. '*As Moses
ascended the mountain he found God making the ornamental
points [Ketharim] of the letters [in the Law]." The ex-
traordinary points, the Qeri and Kethibh, the division into
paragraphs by spaces — these all were in the divine model just
as in a Hebrew Bible of the present day. Some scholars,
however, were more radical and affirmed that the vowel
points (and, of course, with them the sacred text) were given
to Adam in paradise. Others believed the points to have
been added by Ezra and the so-called Great Synagogue.
Mediating theologians tried to combine the different views.
Azariah de Rossi supposed the points first communicated to
Adam in paradise and transmitted by him to Moses, to have
been ** partially forgotten and their pronunciation vitiated
during the Babylonian captivity ; that they had been restored
by Ezra, but that they had been forgotten again in the wars
and struggles during and after the destruction of the sacred
Temple ; and that the Massorites, after the close of the Tal-
mud, revised the system and permanently fixed the pronun-
ciation by the contrivance of the present signs. " ^

To judge of the success of this author by general experi-
ence, we may conjecture that his well-meant attempt brought

* Ginsburg, The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, p. 53.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 93

upon him the hatred of botb parties. The general opinion
of later Jewish authorities is to the effect that Ezra called a
convention of elders and scribes on his return from the cap-
tivity — the prototype of the later Sanhedrim. This Great
Synagogue first considered the subject of the Canon— gather-
ing the sacred text into one volume and rejecting uninspired
writings. They then deliberated on the text, marking off the
verses, settling on the correct reading, the use of the vowel
letters and the Qeri and Kethibh. They further added the
points, both the vowel points and accents. As if this were
not enough, they made also the Aramaic translations called
the Targums and added the Massora proper ; that is to say,
they counted the number of letters, words, and verses in each
book, noted these figures in the margin, marked the middle
word and verse in each book, and called especial attention to
unusual forms, that the scribes might make no mistake. This
work, we may suppose, they stamped as authentic and took
measures to have it correctly transmitted.*

The influence of this theor}' upon Christian thinkers will
be noticed later. The theory itself is certainly rigid enough,
and its method would clearly secure an authentic Scripture.
The only trouble with it is that it is entirely unsupported by
facts. The Great Synagogue never had any existence. It
has arisen from a misunderstanding of Ezra's activity in the
great popular assembly, the account of which is contained in
Neh. viii. Ezra's work at that time was, no doubt, of un-
speakable moment. But in the account we have, it is a
thoroughly practical one, instructing the people in the Law
and pledging them to its observance. Of settling the Canon
we do not hear a word, and, indeed, we are tolerably certain
that the whole Canon was not settled ilntil a much later date.
If Ezra (the Great Synagogue never existed, as I have said)

^ Buxtorf, Tiberias, cc. X, XI. Schnedermann, Die Controverse
des Lt. Cappellus mit den Buxtorfen u. s. w., p. 27.

94 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

did not even settle the Canon, much less can we suppose that
he attended to the scrupulosities of the Massora. Concern-
ing the vowel points, we know that they were not invented
until somewhere near the eighth century of our era, and that
the Massora is a growth of many centuries. Finally, the sur-
prising uniformity of the Hebrew text has been secured by
the loss or destruction of all copies that differed from one au-
thorized model. But this model was settled upon certainly
after the first Christian century.

We are discussing the subject of inspiration, and it might
seem at first sight as if all this Jewish theory was irrelevant.
Let us notice, therefore, where we are. I suppose I am right
in saying that we mean by inspiration the divine influence
exerted upon the minds of the writers of the Bible, which led
them to choose and shape their material so as to make the
result the authoritative rule of faith and practice. The Jew-
ish theory concerning the Great Synagogue was shaped by
the same interest which leads us to formulate a doctrine of
inspiration. And when Elias Levita showed the late origin
of the vowel points, he was violently accused of what would
be called among us **low views of inspiration."
' But I wish to go further, and as some object to the asser-
tion that such a thing as bibliolatry is possible, to call your
attention to some other theories which have been held by the
Jews, and have also had large influence in the Christian
church. The Jews were in dead earnest when they argued
that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore every item
in it is true. They went further, and concluded that every
item in it is important truth and worthy of God. In apply-
ing the theory to the facts they would not be misled by ap-
pearances. It does indeed seem that some of the statements
are trivial, and taken in their literal sense they make diffi-
culties. The obvious conclusion is that the^ contain a deeper
sense. The search for this deeper sense leads to the whole

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 95

system of allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Besides
this, some things in Scrif)ture are ambiguous or obscure.
If we are to reach the truth we must have a guixie. The
hypothesis of an inerrant Word leads .to the demand for an
inerrant interpretation. The rabbinical authorities postulate
both a deeper sense and an authoritative interpi'etation. The
latter is provided in the so-called Oral Law, which, though
embodied in comparatively late written documents, was held
to be in fact as old as Moses, having been transmitted orally
from him to the time of its written redaction, a period of
about seventeen centuries. This view of the Mishna^ (or'
even of the whole Talmud) has been maintained until com-
paratively recent times.* ** We can not suppose that God
would give an imperfect Law. An authorized interpretation
is therefore needed, which we have in the Talmud (Oral
Law). It is natural, the1-efore,,that we [Jews] hold to this
that we may not grope in darkness." This view is even now
the view of orthodox Judaism, and it is in substance as old
as the New Testament. For we see that at that time the
** traditions of the elders" had usurped the place of the di-
vine Law. It could hardly be otherwise. The Oral Law, as
the alleged interpretation of the written command, must be
immediately obeyed — it was itself the medium through which
the written Law was obeyed. The simple Word was insuffi-
cient, while the traditional decision exactly met the particular
need. The latter was therefore the more important. This
is declared by a recent Jewish authority to be * * a universally
recognized principle: tJu decisions of the Scribes are more
weighty than those of the Law^ The logical result, therefore,
of this theory of inerrancy was to substitute for the Scripture
the alleged authorized interpretation.

The decisions of the wise, however, were concerned with

* GfrSrer, I, 250 ; Weber, 87 ; Jost, Geschichte des Judentums, I, 93.*

• Creizenach, quoted by Hartmann, 514.

96 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

practical matters, points of casuistry, such as always arise
under a code of morals. On the other side, much even of
the Tora is not embraced under the head of command or
prohibition. To make use of this, the system of allegory was
developed. ''The fondness of the Jews for allegorical ex-
position found its support in the belief that the excellence of
the Tora lay in the ine/chaustible spring of varied interpreta-
tions indicated in the assertion that the revelation was first
given in seventy languages. This variety was deduced from
Jeremiah, xxiii : 29 : * My words are as a fire and as a ham-
mer that breaks the rock in pieces.* Who can count the
fragments into which the stone is shattered by a strong arm,
and who can count the sparks sent forth by the fire ?" ^ Be-
sides the theory that each passage has seventy meanings, we
hear that Moses himself expounded each section in forty-nine
different ways. This delirium reaches its height in the later
assertion which makes each verse of the Law to contain no
less than six hundred thousand meanings, if we may trust
the authority of Eisenmenger.^ But not to insist upon this,
the methods of obtaining some of the admitted seventy
meanings are calculated to show the small value of such a
theory. One of these methods is the so-called Gematria,
based on the numerical value of the letters. This value was
calculated for any word, and the resulting number was put
into the place of the word, or if this gave no sense any other
word whose component letters gave the same sum might be
substituted in its place. The numerical value of a single
letter might be significant. The large y (= 70) in Deut.
vi: 4, is one of the arguments for the theory of seventy
senses just considered. The letters might be interchanged

1 Hartmann, 534, quoting from Rashi on Gen. xxxiii : 20, and Ex.
vi: II. The same in substance from the Talmud, Weber, 84.
• 2 Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, I, 458.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 97

by Athbash or Albam. ^ A word might be -taken as the basis
of an acrostic, each of its letters taken as the initial of a new
word, or it might be made into another by an anagram. In
this way, from the first word of Genesis it was discovered
that the world was created on a New Yearns day,^ and a word
in Gen. ii, 4, shows that the earth was created for the sake
of Abraham.

It is clear that this is simply exegetical legerdemain, and it
need not detain us longer. Its main value is that it shows
where a high theory of the value of revelation may land us.
It is in line with the declaration of the Rabbis that God him-
self studies the Law three hours every day.^ It brings with
it almost inevitably the magical application of Scripture ex-
emplified in the use of its verses as charms or amulets, in re-
gard to which we may be pardoned for asserting that they
have no more real efficiency than a leaf from the mass-book.
But these extravagancies aside, the more sober form of the
theory carried out in the allegorical interpretation of Scripture *
has been so important in the history of the Church that we
may profitably look at it a little more closely. The most
prominent exponent of it among the Jews was Philo of Alex-
andria, and his influence in the early church can scarcely be
estiniated. As a devout Jew, Philo accepted the Old Testa-
ment as the Word of God, whose inspiration extended to the
most minute particulars, placing the highest value upon the
Law as he put Moses above the other prophets. He does
not confine his theory to the Hebrew text, but extends it to
the Greek translators. ** He accepts the story which ascribes
to the translators of the Pentateuch a miraculous concurrence
in the choice of words. He speaks of the translators them-
selves as *hierophants and prophets,' and maintains that the

1 A for Z, B for Y, and so on, would represent the Athbash in En-
glish. A for N, B for O, and so on, the Albam.
• Reuss, 721 ; Buxtorf, Tiberias (1620), p. 163.
» Weber, p. 17.

7

98 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are such that they must be
admired and reverenced * as sisters or rather as one and the
same both in the facts and in the words. ' He fully acts upon
this belief, and . . . accords to the Greek text as profound
a veneration and faith as if it had been written by the fmger
of God himself." ^ On this basis Philo proceeds to discover
the hidden truth by means of the allegorical method. All
true wisdom is contained in this reservoir. Consequently,
the Greek philosophy must have been derived from it. And
the results obtained by his method are really those of Greek
philosophy. His general system we may pass by for the
present. What interests us is his theory of interpretation.
This is that each verse of Scripture has, besides its natural
grammatical or literal meaning, a secondary or higher sense.*
This latter is the more important — the reality of which the
literal sense is only the shadow. To show what he means,
let me quote the following : * ^ The paradise in Eden is the
t type of virtue. The stream which waters it is Goodness
which divides into the four streams of the four cardinal vir-
tues." ' Again, "the five cities of the Plain destroyed by
the divine punishment for the abominations of their in-
habitants are the five senses, the instruments of sinful
pleasure." The four ingredients of the incense (Exod. xxx,
33) represent the four natural elements. The incense itself
ascending to God represents the adoration of the universe
made up of these elements. In the great allegorical com-
mentary to Genesis, *^ the leading thought is that the history
of mankind as related in Genesis is in fact an imposing psy-
chology and ethic. The different men described (good and

\Drummond, Philo, I, 15.

' This theory was not, of course, original with Philo, but already in
use. — Cf. SchUrer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, II, 871 ; Hart-
mann, 536.

' Hartmann, 579.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 99

bad) are the different conditions of the soul." ^ Astonishing
as this appears to us, there can be no doubt that it was em-
ployed in all seriousness by a devout and profound thinker,
who supposed he was engaged in developing the meaning of
the Word as intended by God himself. And it concerns us
here to notice that this method of exegesis was compelled by
the rigidity of the theory in connection with the nature of the
facts of the -record. The difficulty of interpreting the lan-
guage of Scripture literally was such that the exegete took
refuge in the higher sense. The theory of the later Rabbis,
that the sacred text * * could contain nothing derogatory to the
Deity and that it could contain nothing contrary to sound
reason," was Philo's also. **Adam and Eve could not have -
hidden themselves from God, for God has interpenetrated
*the universe and left nothing empty of himself; and, there-
fore, the account refers only to the false conception of the
wicked man. ... To suppose that God really planted
fruit trees in Paradise when no one was allowed to live there,
and when it would be impious to fancy that he required them
for himself, is * a great and incurable silliness. ' The refer-
ence, therefore, must be to the paradise of virtues with their
appropriate actions implanted by God in the soul." ^ One is
tempted to quote more at length, but these examples are suffi-
cient to show how the allegorical sense must, under the claim
of doing the highest honor to the Word of God, really nullify
its natural and legitimate meaning.

From Philo the transition is natural to the Christian Church,
in which, indeed, Philo was honored almost as one of the
Fathers. Before, however, we inquire into methods of inter-
pretation, let us notice the significant fact that no one of the
ecumenical councils of the undivided church makes faith in
the Scriptures a test of orthodoxy. Belief in the **Holy

' Schurer,II, 839.
"^ Drummond,!, 19.

100 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

Ghost who Spake by the prophets " is professed in one early
creed, but the indefiniteness of the expression shows how
little need was felt of a definition as to the nature of the
written Word. It was after the middle of the fourth century
before the church felt the need of officially defining even the
extent of the Canon, and this was done in provincial synods
only, and the Apocrypha were included in the Old Testament.
In fact, as has been said, ** it did not at all seem at first as
though Christ would found his church upon a Scripture, or
even as though the elaboration of a sacred record were an
essential feature of its foundation."* The church was, in
fact, founded upon the spoken words of the Apostles, and
after the Apostles had been removed from their earthly activ-
ity the tradition of their words was distinct enough to serve
as a guide. But, of course, the Old Testament had its place
as a means of instruction, and with it the method of instruc-
tion illustrated in Philo. The Epistle of Barnabas discovered
in the three hundred and eighteen servants of Abraham a pre-
diction of the crucified Jesus.'* The method reminds us of the
Gematria of the Jews. Clemens of Alexandria sees in the four
colors of the Tabernacle, the four natural elements. Abra-
ham's three days' journey to the place of Moriah represents
the three stages of development of the human soul. This
author, indeed, says in so many words that the whole Scrip-
ture has only allegorical sense. ^

Origen, the most learned man of the time, perhaps the
most learned man of antiquity, adopts this theory to the full.
He distinguishes a twofold or threefold sense, and values the
allegorical exposition because the simple grammatical mean-
ing of many passages is incredible or unworthy of God.

•^ Thiersch quoted by Dietzsch.' Studien und Kritiken, 1869, p. 474
' Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen
Kirche, p. 31.
' Hartmann, p. 558.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AJSTD INSPIRATION. 101

The Latin Fathers accepted the same theory. Ambrose
speaks of a threefold sense — historical (literal), mystical, and
moral. If the literal sense gives us a contradiction, the solu-
tion is found in the other senses. Augustine's generally
sober judgment follows the same path, though his allegories
are rather types. Esau and Jacob are types of Jew and
Christian. Abel represents the slain Christ, Seth the risen
Christ, Joseph the ascended Christ. Ham is * * the sly gen-
eration of the heretics." Isaac, blind in his old age, pre-
figures the blindness of the Jews. The rock twice smitten
with the rod points to the cross of Christ, because two pieces
of wood [rods] joined together make a cross. Even Jerome,
whose work as translator made him especially sensitive to
the literal meaning, follows the allegorical method in his ex-
position. ^ At the same time, he confesses that many diffi-
culties are to him insoluble. It is of no use to puzzle our-
selves too much with the literal sense, for the letter killeth.
In the chronology, especially, he finds such discrepancies
and confusion that he leaves the subject to the dilettanti.^

These examples will suffice to show that the Church before
the Reformation had no apprehension of the problem before
us. In a general way, inspiration was held as connected
with revelation. But it was attributed to the Apocrypha of
the Old Testament as well as to the canonical books. It
was, indeed, attributed to many pseudepigrapha and even to
heathen pogts and philosophers. But apostolic tradition at
first, and afterward the voice of the Church, was regarded as
equally inspired, and this tradition furnished the authority in
faith and morals upon which all men leaned. And when the
difficulties of the Scripture record forced themselves upon the
careful student, they were explained by a supposed mystical
or spiritual sense. In the Middle Age, the line was not
sharply drawn between Scripture and the Fathers. Hugo of

' Diestel, pp. 89 and 98.

102 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

St. Victor, who is more reserved than many others, ranks as.
authorities (i) the Gospels, (2) the other books of Scripture,
(3) the decretals and canons of the Church, (4) the writings
of the Fathers. The latter contain the same truth with the
others, only more clear and more expanded.* The Roman
Catholic Church stands on this ground to-day. The Council
of Trent formally asserts that it receives and venerates with
equal piety and reverence all the books of the Old and New
Testaments, as also the traditions dictated by Christ's own
word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost and preserved in the
Catholic Church by a continuous succession. Recent publi-
cations show that this church also holds in substance to the
allegorical method of exposition. I will simply call attention
here to some examples which have fallen under mv eye :
Eve is a type of the Virgin Mary. Sarah is a type oAwisdom
and virtue, and Hagar a type of philosophy, the handmaid
of theology. Keturah's descendants represent the heretical
sects of New Testament times. Abraham seeking a bride
for his son is a . type of God the Father, who also seeks a
bride (the Church) for His Son. Eliezer, who is sent on this
errand, is the representative of the twelve Apostles. The
well at which Rebecca is found corresponds to the water of
baptism, and the presents brought by Eliezer are the divine
Word and the good works of the saints. Jacob's words, ** I
am Esau, thy first born/' can not be called a lie — they are a
tnysterium — in a tropical sense they are true. Jacob, in using
them, is a type of the Gentiles, who claim and receive the
adoption and blessing belonging to the Jewish people. Jacob
had two wives. So Christ calls the Jew and the Gentile.
Leah, the tender-eyed, is the blinded Israel. Pharaoh, who
commanded the mid wives to kill the Hebrew babes, is a type
of Satan, who tries to destroy the virtues by means of human
science and wisdom, which often lead to heresies. Deborah

^ Diestel, p. 178.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 103

{the Synagogue) incites Barak (Israel) to battle against Sisera
(Satan) and routs his forces. Jael (the Church) meets him,
stupefies him with milk (prayer), and slays him with the nail
(of the Cross). Samson even is made a type of Christ.
Now, these examples are taken from a book published with
the approval of Roman Catholic authorities ^ within the last
ten years, and written by a professor of theology in a distin-
guished university. They show with perfect clearness how
the lofty profession of fiinding all truth in the Bible really
unfits one to discover the real truth of the Bible. It is this
virtual nullifying of Scripture by tradition against which the
Protestant Church protests. To this church we now turn
our attention.

The principle of the Reformation, I need not remind you,
is a double one. Its two parts are Justification by faith and
the Authority of Scripture alone in matters of faith and life.
Of these two the former is the vital principle, the second is
regulative. In Luther^ s own experience they developed in
this order. He first experienced justification by faith. In
order to maintain his Christian life, he had to defend it
against the champions of the Church. At first he supposed
he had also the authority of the Church on his side. But in-
vestigation showed him that this authority was at least
divided. In this way he was driven back upon Scripture
alone. Luther's theory was in substance this : Christ is pre-
sented to the sinner in the Gospel either as heard in the
•church or as read in the Bible. He is immediately recog-
nized as the needed Savior and as the Son of God. He is
appropriated by faith, and the believer is justified and
adopted into the family of God. Up to this point it is clear
that nothing more is claimed for the written Word than that it
gives a historically credible account of the life of Christ.

' Zschokke, Biblische Frauen des Alten Testamentes. Freiburg,
1SS2.

\

104 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

The peculiar normative quality of the Word comes out
in the subsequent life of the believer and the church.
Questions of doctrine and of duty arise. There will
be perplexities in the individual heart as well as differ-
ences between different members of the church. To settle
these the appeal is to the written Word. It is- clear that
Luther would claim no further infallibility for the Bible than
this, and, indeed, he expressly declares as much in his judg-
ment of the Canon. He proposes this rule : What proclaims
Christ is Scripture. " What does not proclaim Christ is not
apostolic, though written by St: Peter or by St. Paul. What
proclaims Christ is apostolic, though it were written by Judas,
Annas, Pilate, or Herod.'' On this internal evidence he would
include the first book of Maccabees in the Canon, as he
would exclude the epistle of James. He can not bear the
book of Esther because it judaizes so. In regard to the
epistle to the Hebrews, he takes the middle ground: * 'Al-
though the author does not lay the foundation of faith, which
is the Apostle's work, yet he builds thereon gold^ silver, and
precious stones, as St. Paul says. If now some wood, hay,
or stubble is intermixed, this shall not hinder our receiving
the precious doctrine with all honor — nevertheless we may
not make this equal to the apostolic epistles." ^ It is quite
in accordance with this, that the first doctrinal treatise of the
Reformation — Melanchthon's Loci — had no section on the
doctrine of Scripture at all, while even in the later editions
he only treats briefly the difference between the Old Testa-
ment and the New.^ The early Swiss reformers stand on the
same ground. ** The Word of God in Christ is the highest
authority. Zwingli finds church councils enough in the
words of Christ." Bullinger says in one instance that the
writers of the Bible are sometimes led astray by defective

^ Luther's Vorreden zur Heiligen Schrift.

' Klaiber in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. II, p. 3.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 105

memory.^ Calvin, as we might expect, is more full on the
doctrine of Scripture, yet he does not give a clear statement
as to the connection of inerrancy and inspiration, and, in
fact, recognizes the difficulties in the case. He does not
hesitate to affirm that the Scriptures are written in '* a humble
and contemptible style." Three Evangelists (he adds later)
"recite their history in a low and mean style. Many proud
men are disgusted with that simplicity, because they attend
not to the principal points of doctrine. " ^ In hi? commentaries
he concedes minor errors and discrepancies of the writers
(compare Tholuck, p. 131). What Calvin emphasizes, in
full accord with Luther, is the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
**The testimony of the Spirit is superior lO all reason [/. e.,
to the Evidences usually adduced for Scripture]. For as God
alone is a sufficient witness of himself in his own Word, so
also the Word will never gain credit in the hearts of men till
it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit. It is
necessary, therefore, that the same Spirit who spake by the
months of the prophets should penetrate into our hearts to
convince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles which
were divinely intrusted to them. . . . Some good men
are troubled that they are not always prepared with clear
proof to oppose the impious when they murmur with im-
punity against the divine Word, as though the Spirit were
not, therefore, denominated a seal and an earnest for the
confirmatipn of the faith of the pious; because, till He
illuminate their minds, they are perpetually fluctuating amidst
a multitude of doubts. Let it be considered, then, as an un-
deniable truth, that they who have been inwardly taught by
the Spirit feel an entire acquiescence in the Scripture, and
that it is self-authenticated, carrying with it its own evidence,
and it ought not to be made the subject of demonstration and

* Quoted by Tholuck Zeitschr. fur Christl. Wissenschaft, 1, 139.
» Institutes, I, VIII, X, and XI.

106 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

arguments from reason ; but it obtains the credit which it de-
serves with us by the testimony of the Spirit. " * There can
be no doubt that these words of Calvin correctly state the
position of the reformers. They are the source of the state-
ments of the Protestant creeds on this subject, nearly all of
which emphasize the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and no
one of which ventures to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture
apart from matters of faith and doctrine, . unless it be the
Swiss Formula Consensus, of which I shall speak later. ^ If,
now, we ask, what it is that we are assured of by this testi-
mony, we shall agree that it is the articles of sin and law and
grace which Melanchthon makes the subjects of his Loci.
Or, as the Heidelberg Catechism says: Three things are
necessary for me to know : first, the greatness of my sin and
misery ; second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and
misery ; third, how I am to be thankful to God for such re-
demption. These are the things which the Holy Spirit sets
before us in Scripture, and moved by that same Holy Spirit,
we recognize in the portraiture the divine author and accept
the Word as His. *'A11 in this book is tributary to sin and
salvation; all leads up to Calvary." This I heard from one
of our own pulpits recently, and this is in harmony with the
voice of the Evangelical Church in her creeds and con-
fessions.

But because we recognize the divine authorship of the doc-
trine set forth in the Bible, does it follow that we have a
guarantee for every detail of its historical statement ? Be-
cause you recognize the voice of God addressing you as a
sinner, and freely inviting you to Christ, can you therefore
assert, for example, that the list of Dukes of Edom, in Gen-
esis (ch. xxxvi), is exactly and absolutely correct ? This is

1 Institutes, VII, IV and V.

^ The Irish Articles which, however, were soon superseded by the
Thirty-nine Articles, affirm the Canonical Books to be of **most cer-
tain credit " as well as of the highest authority.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 107

the question which confronts us when we come to make the
Bible a historical study. It is evident that the great reform-
ers would have answered the question in the negative, and
they would have declared that whether this list were correct
or not made no difference as to the main question. The fol-
lowing generation of theologians, however, did not so answer
the question. From the inspiration of the Bible they deduced
its historical accuracy on every point. The reasons for this
are not far to seek. After the Council of Trent, the Roman
Catholic polemic became sharper. It became the endeavor
of the Roman Catholic party to show the necessity of tradi-
tion and the untrustworthiness of Scripture alone. This led
the Protestants to defend the Bible more tenaciously than be-
fore. In addition, the scholastic philosophy, though almost
contemptuously rejected by Luther, still influenced the minds
of men. The thick quartos of Gerhard, as has been recently
said, would lose a good part of their dimensions were they
deprived of what was borrowed from Thomas Aquinas.
We are here concerned simply with the effect of this move-
ment upon the doctrine of Holy Scripture. This doctrine
was of course more sharply formulated. It was extended to
the style of the writers. It affirmed that each book of
the Canon must have been formally approved and joined to
the others as soon as written. It went great lengths m affirm-
ing the perspicuity of Scripture, or if it admitted the difficulty
of some passages, it explained them" as God's method of stim-
ulating study by curiosity, or even as the divine arrangement
for impressing upon the laity due respect for the learning of
the ministry. Finally the errorless transmission was made
equally a matter of logical deduction. That I may not be
suspected of exaggeration, let me give you a few details. It
was denied by Voetius "that any examination or reflection
was necessary on the part of the inspired writer in regard to
that which was written, since it was given him immediately

108 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

and in an extraordinary manner,"^ contradicting Luke i : 1-4.
Even the language and style of the Bible must be wholly
faultless. Diversity of style was denied or explained as a
matter of divine choice simply. *'The Holy Spirit had a
preference [singularem gustum\ - for the style of Polybius ;
therefore he chose this among all then existing Greek styles." *
Quotations already made show how much more correct was
Calvin's view. ** Whatever is related by the Holy Scriptures
is absolutely true [verts sima\, whether it pertains to doctrine,
morals, history, chronology, topography, or nomenclature ; and
there can be, there must be, no ignorance, carelessness or for-
getfulness attributed to the amanuenses of the Holy Spirit in
writing the sacred books. *'^ The consequence is drawn
with rigor — there can be error in the transmission no more
than in the original. For where would be the certainty or
truth of Scripture, were there any errors of transmission?
So far we have been describing the Lutheran view. The
same tendency is visible in the Reformed Church. But it is
worth noting that this period of stringent devotion to the in-
fallibility of Scripture is the period of the bitterest polemic
among the Protestant Churches. Calovius, the most con-
sistent upholder of this doctrine of inspiration, was one of the
bitterest enemies of the Calvinists, hated them worse than he
did the Roman Catholics, used his influence tp put them
down by the civil power, and attacked with all the virulence
of a strong and uncompromising nature Calixtus, who tried
to find a modus vivendi with the other churches. Nor should
we forget here that this was the century in which the Coper-
nican system triumphed in astronomy, and that among its
opponents were found these theologians who opposed to it

1 Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, I, 171.

2 Calovius quoted by Klaiber, Zeitsch. Luther. Theol., 1864, 23.

3 Quenstedt quoted by Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, p.
294.

>ik

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 109

indubitable proofs from Scripture.^ In the Reformed chinrches
there was the same tendency to emphasize the divine factor
in inspiration. The influence of the two Buxtorfs in the
Swiss churches led to an especial emphasis on the Jewish the-
ories of the Old Testament Canon. It was held that the
Canon was settled by the Great Synagogue, and that the
points were a part of the revelation to Ezra, from whom also
the Massora was derived.

The ascription of the points to Adam even was revived by
some zealous theologians. Thiei younger Buxtorf found it
difficult to decide between Adam, Moses, and Ezra as the
original punctuator. The discussion of this point led to the
adoption of the Swiss Formula Consensus, in 1675, which de-
clared the vowel points to be inspired. This is the only
Protestant creed, however, which took such a stand, and it
was of only local importance, and even in Switzerland it had
but temporary validity. It is evident then that these high
and stringent theories were never the theories of the church.
In fact, there never were lacking men in the Evangelical
churches who protested against them or who refused to ac-
cept them. The history of the doctrine of the Hebrew vowel
points is instructive in this regard, and for this reason I ven-
ture to call attention to it somewhat more at length.

As there may be some laymen interested in this matter, let
me explain that the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are, in their
original force, all consonants. The vowels are supplied by
smaller signs, called points, placed in, over or beneath the letters.
The three letters ktl may represent, therefore, a number of dif-
ferent forms, as katal, kittel, kotel, kuttal. In practice however
the context is nearly always sufficient to decide what word is
intended in a particular place, and no difficulty is felt by the
practiced scholar in reading unpointed texts, and these are in
use in all Hebrew books except the Bible. For the sake of

* So Calovius and Voetius, cf. Gass, pp. 342, 461.

110 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

accHracy, however, the Bible is generally written (and printed)
with the points. As we have seen, the'later Jewish theory-
ascribes these points to Ezra, if not to Moses or Adam, and
this opinion was embraced by the Buxtorfs and others, who
felt that God could not have committed his Word to an un-
certain script. The attack on this view was made about the
same time by two men. One of them, Morinus, was a Ro-
man Catholic, and he was (at least, partially) moved by a de-
sire to overthrow the security of the Protestants, and to prove
the necessity of the tradition of the Church, in order to a
correct interpretation of the Bible. But he called attention
to facts overlooked by the Protestants, and so far forth aided
to a correct solution of the problem — eventually that is, for his
polemic tone hindered at first a correct estimate of his argu-
ments. The other champion of the late origin of the points
was Ludovicus Cappellus, professor in the French Protestant
College, at Saumur. He was at first, as he avows, of the
opinion of Buxtorf. Against his will, he was forced by facts
to the opposite conclusion. His observations were embodied
in a treatise,^ the MS. of which was sent to Buxtorf the elder
for his opinion. As this distinguished scholar advised against
the publication, Cappellus sent the manuscript to Erpenius, a
distinguished Dutch orientalist, and Erpenius published it at
once, with a preface of his own, but without the author's
name. The history of the younger Buxtorfs attack and Cap-
pellus's rejoinder need not be given in detail. But we may
learn something from the method of argument pursued. It
is, on Cappellus's side, partly a careful examination of the
reasons adduced by the advocates of antiquity, partly the
marshaling of facts by them overlooked or not allowed due
weight. For example, it had been alleged that the points are
necessary to the correct understanding of the text. But this

* Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum. Republished in one volume,
folio, with the Notae Criticae and the Vindiciae Arcani, 1689.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. Ill

is by no means so. Moderij Hebrew, as well as Syriac and
Arabic, are constantly read and printed without points, and
no difficulty is felt in reading and understanding them by
those familiar with the languages. Again, the opinion of the
Jews had been alleged. But this is by no means unanimous,
and in fact the weight of authority is rather against the an-
tiquity than for it. Elias Levita, himself no mean scholar,
was sustained by Kimchi and other distinguished authorities.
And among the authorities cited by Buxtorf some were cer-
tainly of very recent date. So far the reply to allegations.
Now positive arguments are the following; first, the argu-
ment from silence. The points are not mentioned by Jerome
or by the Talmud. Buxtorf might reply indeed: **They
may have existed, nevertheless." " And indeed the silence of
an author concerning a fact may not prove the non-existence
of the fact. But in some circumstances the argument from
silence is very weighty indeed. Jerome had frequent oc^-
sion to discuss points of Hebrew grammar. He mentions
the letters and their occasional ambiguity. Had the points
existed, he would surely have mentioned them ; and so of the
Talmud, which often discusses the different possible mean-
ings of Bible verses. Again, the fact that the Jews use an
unpointed roll of the Law in the synagogue, shows that the
points are not ancient. Ecclesiastical customs, as we know,
are conservative — tenacious of old forms. Had the points
been introduced by Ezra, they would have been introduced
everywhere. Tl^e unpointed synagogue rolls are survivals
of ancient custom. Another argument is the complication
of the system itself. It is entirely too elaborate to be the in-
vention of a single age; it bears all the marks of having
grown up through several generations. To all these argu-
ments Buxtorf can only reply by hypotheses designed to ad-
mit what he was compelled to admit, but at the same time to
show how his theory might be held nevertheless. His main

112 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

argument was the danger to the Christian faith of the new
hypothesis.

As I have said, it is now known as definitely as any historic
facts can be known that Cappellus was right. The points
were not invented until after the redaction of the Talmud, and
they were then gradually developed through two or three
centuries. The reasons which establish this fact are those
urged by Cappellus himself. Notice, they are critical reasons,
mainly belonging to what we now know as the lower criticism
to be sure, but critical nevertheless. And, indeefl, it is, often
difficult to draw the line between the lower criticism and the
higher. Criticism is simply the careful examination of the
facts to discover what they really teach. It takes no asser-
tions without examining the grounds on which they are made.
And having carefully examined the facts, it seeks for the
hypothesis which will most naturally explain them all.

The point we have reached is the high water mark of the
doctrine of inspiration. We have discovered that the early
church had no doctrine of inspiration in our sense of the
word inspiration. Its affirmations are invalidated by a theory
of allegory which completely overshadows and destroys the
true sense of Scripture. The reformers who swept this away
were concerned with the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which
assures us of- matters of doctrine and duty in the Word of
God, with no interest m affirming historic inerrancy. The
extreme development of Protestant dogmatics in the seven-
teenth century, in opposition to the Roman Catholic polemic,
led to unwarranted emphasis of the divine side of Scripture
and an almost total ignoring of the human side. This the-
ology, in strict logic, as it supposed, affirmed the perfection
of style of the Bible, its freedom from grammatical errors,
the absence from it of accommodation to human limitations,
its strict accuracy even in the matter of natural science, to-
pography, and chronology, and finally its miraculous preserva-
tion from transmissional corruption by means of the Masso-

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 113

retic system.* The majority of these points are now uni-
versally given up.

It is of more importance to note that this extreme theory
was always the theory of some theologians only. There al-
ways were evangelical and devout men who did not accept it.
But that I may not weary you with historical details, let me
come down to the practical point of the teaching of to-day.
I shall probably not be wrong in assuming that so much of
the theory of verbal inerrancy as can be held at the present
day is held, stated, and defended by Prof. Gaussen, late of
Geneva, whose book on inspiration^ has in our theological
world almost the dignity of a classic. I will endeavor to
state his theory.

Prof. Gaussen states his case in this way (p. 40) : * * The
Scriptures are given and guaranteed by God even in their
very language." As an alternate statement of the same thing
he gives: '*The Scriptures contain no error ; that is, they say
all they ought to say, and only what they ought to say."
You will notice that the point upon which the whole theory
turns is the definition of the word error. It is clear that the
author means error of any kind, for later he admits ' * that i(
it be true that there are, as is said, erroneous statements and
contradictory accounts in the Holy Scriptures, their plenary
inspiration must be renounced." (P. no.) The alleged
errors which he discusses under this head, and the existence
of which he denies, are discrepancies in the Gospel narrative,
points of chronology, and matters of physical science. In
regard to the last named he says : ** We freely admit that if
there are any physical errors fully proved in the Scriptures,
the Scriptures could not be from God. But we mean to

* No one seems to have been staggered by the fact that the Old Tes-
tament alone received such a remarkable system for its preservation.

' Theopneusty, or the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
'Translated by E. N. Kirk. New York, 1842.

8

114 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

show there are none,, and we shall dare to challenge the ad-
versaries to produce one from the entire Bible." He then
proceeds to show the accuracy of the expression in Joshua,
'* the sun stood still in the midst of heaven." There is, then^
he says, *'no physical error in Scripture, and this great fact,
which becomes more admirable in proportion as it is more
closely contemplated, is a striking proof of the inspiration
which has dictated to their writers even in the choice of the
least expression." There would seem to be no doubt, there-
fore, of the meaning of this author. I have always supposed
Dr. Charles Hodge to mean the same thing when he says
(Theol., I, 152) that the Scriptures are **free from all error,
whether of doctrine, fact, or precept." If what the sacred
writers assert, he says later (p. 163), ^^God asserts, which, as
has been shown, is the Scriptural idea of inspiration, their as^
sertions must be free from error." Again, he says, *^the
whole Bible was written under such an influence as preserved
its human 2iM\hox^ from all error, and makes it for the Church
the infallible rule of faith and practice." Notice there are
two statements here. Had Dr. Hodge contented himself
with affirming that the whole Bible was written * * under such
an influence as makes it for the church the infallible' rule of
faith and practice," no one could have objected. The other
clause is the one to which we object, and whose application
to the Old Testament I affirm to be impossible. Drs. Hodge
and Warfield, in their well-known article, say: *'It is evi-
dent, therefore, that every supposed conclusion of critical in-
vestigation which denies the apostolic origin of a New Testa-
ment book, or the truth 0/ any part of Christ's testimony in
relation to the Old Testament and its contents, or which is
inconsistent ' with the absolute truthfulness of any affirmation of
any book so authenticated, must be inconsistent with the true
doctrine of inspiration;" and again: **the historical faith of
the Church has always been that all affirmations of Scripture
of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty,, or of phys-

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 115

ical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical
principle, are without any error when the ipsissima verba of the
original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their
natural and intended sense." ^ These statements are exactly
in line with those of the authors quoted above, except that
they make a reservation concerning the transmission of the
documents. -Now, these authors (p. 237) admit that this
statement is to be tried by the facts, and it is to the facts of
the Old Testament that I propose to go. First, however,
allow me a word of personal explanation. Some years ago,
when a candidate for ordination, I received as a text for my
trial sermon the well-known passage of II Timothy, '*A11
Scripture is given by inspiration of God.'' In that sermon I
took the very ground of the authors I have been quoting.
For more than fifteen years since that time I have been en-
gaged in the direct daily study of the Old Testament. It has
been my duty to familiarize myself with the facts of the rec-
ord, and as well with the statements of scholars about those
facts. I well recall the reluctance which I felt to read some
books which departed from ** the views commonly received
among us," and on reflection I can not convict myself of un-
due sympathy with German mysticism or rationalism. But I
have felt it my duty to know facts, and I sincerely believe
that the truth of God is evident in all the facts of his Word.
But in the examination of facts to which I now proceed, re-
member that it is my desire to give no one pain. And I ask
you not to take my statement, but to examine the record
itself. Dr.' Charles Hodge well says (I, p. 11) : ''Almost all
false theories in science and false doctrines in theology are
due in a great degree to mistakes as to matters of fact."
Three classes of facts seem to have been ignored by the ad-
vocates of an inerrant inspiration.

^ Presbyterian Review, 1881, pp. 236 and 238. The italics are
mine. ^

116 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

I. The first class is the least important and may be said not
to bear upon inerrancy. It includes the cases where writings
have been included in the books of those who were not their
authors. I will not take up the Pentateuch which has re-
cently been discussed at length by others. The hypothesis
of a redactor there has met with so little favor that it may-
be well to strengthen his position by showing his activity
elsewhere. Look first at the Minor Prophets. We have
them, as you know, in twelve separate books. They are,
however, in the Hebrew Bible one book. It is clear that
an editor has gathered together what prophetic fragments
were in circulation in his time and united them in one roll.
His activity was confined to arranging them in order. He
may have added the titles in some cases, but his knowledge
of the authors was slight. That Joel was the son of Pethuel ;
that one fragment was a vision of Obadiah, and that one con-*
tained the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi — these are
very slight additions to our knowledge. Suppose, now, he
found a fragment without the author's name and inserted it
in the series. It would not have been distinguished externally
from the work of the author immediately preceding. This is
what the critics suppose actually to have taken place. In the
book assigned to Zechariah there is a sharp distinction in
style and situation between the first eight chapters and the
rest of the book. The second half is assigned to an older
prophet. Strictly speaking the hypothesis does not contra-
dict the doctrine of inerrancy, and I should not have alluded
to it except to prepare the way for a similar case which has
made no small scandal in the theological world. I allude, of
course, to the book of Isaiah. Divest your mind of precon-
ceptions now and look at this case. Let us suppose the re-
dactor of the book of the Minor Prophets to have had a
book of Isaiah which included only the first thirty-nine
chapters of our book of that name. He has also in his
possession the magnificent evangelical prophecy wmch is

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 117

more familiar to us than almost any other part of the Old
Testament. He does not know the author's name, or per-
haps it is not safe to have it known. What more likely
than that he should make of it an appendix to the book of
the kindred prophet — the two together make up a rol) about
the size of the book of the Twelve. This would not be out
of harmony with the process of gathering the other book, and
the only way in which it would violate • the strictest theory of
inspiration is in making appear as Isaiah's what is not his.
But it will be replied, as has so often been replied, this is
a merely gratuitous hypothesis, one of those wild vagaries of
the German seekers after novelty of which we have had so
many. Let us look, therefore, at the arguments by which
the critics support their vagary.

In the first place, it is known that the earliest order of
the prophetical books in the Old Testament Canon was Jere-
miah, then Ezekiel, then Isaiah. The only reason for de-
parting from the chronological order that can be suggested is
that the Book of Isaiah was felt to be an anthology like that
of the Minor Prophets.

Secondly, it is rather curious that a narrative piece (chap-
ters xxxvi-xxxix) should be found in the middle of the Book
of Isaiah. Such a notice would come more naturally at the
close of the book. We actually find one at the end of Jere-
miah. There is nothing extravagant in the supposition, there-
fore, that the redactor of Isaiah's works had concluded his
book with* this historical notice, and that the last twenty-seven
chapters were added to a book already complete.

The third argument, from style, is of course less obvious
to the English reader, but I think even the English reader
will discover differences.

Lastly, the situation in the second part of the book is en-
tirely different from that in the first part. Read over the first
chapter of Isaiah as a characteristic sermon of the prophet.
Note the commanding tone in which he calls heaven and

118 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

earth to hear his arraignment of Israel. Look at the Israel
he depicts in its pride and sinfulness and hypocrisy. ** Hear
the word of Jehovah, rulers of Sodom ! Give ear to the in-
struction of our God, people of Gomorrha! To what pur-
pose is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith Jehovah ? I
am sated with holocausts of rams and the fat of fatlings ; and
the blood of bulls and lambs and goats I do not delight in.
When ye come to see" my face — who hath required this at
your hands, to trample my courts ? Bring no more vain ob-
lations ; incense is an abomination to me ; new moon and
Sabbath the calling of assembly — I can not abide iniquity
with festive meeting." Now, after reading this chapter, turn
to^the fortieth: ** Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith
your Lord ! Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and cry unto
her that her term of service is completed, that her guilt is
pardoned, that she hath received of the hand of Jehovah
double for all her sins. Hark! One cries in the wilderness :-
prepare the way of Jehovah, level in the desert a highway for
our God. Every valley shall be filled up and every mountain
and hill brought low, and the steep shall be made level and
the rough country a valley. And the glory of Jehovah shall
be revealed, and all flesh shall see it, for the mouth of Je-
hovah has spoken." Now, what I say is: Read through
this whole second part. Note how God comforts his mourn-
ing people, promises to deliver them, speaks to Zion as deso-
late and forsaken, a captive and an outcast, promises to
bring back her children, to rebuild her walls, to punish her
oppressors. Read this and you will feel that the message
could have come with appropriateness to the people in the
captivity and not to the people of Isaiah's time whose situa-
tion was so different. This is at any rate the conclusion of the
majority of the critics. No one denies the genuineness of the
prophecy ; no one denies that it is a genuine prophecy that
is, and this being admitted, it gains in force and beauty on
the critical theory.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 119

Now, if we admit the critical conclusions in this case, the
question is whether they affect the doctrine of inerrancy. I
do not see that they do, that is to say, they do not show the
inaccuracy of any statement of Scripture, though they show
the inaccuracy of the arrangement of Scripture. I pass to a
' more serious case. As you are well aware, the book of
Psalms is generally ascribed to David. The reason is that a
number of individual Psalms bear his name in the title.
Probably no one now goes to the length of some of the
Rabbis and Fathers in supposing that David wrote the whole
book. But as in the original the titles form a part of the text,
there has been a strong disposition among conservative com-
mentators to vindicate their accuracy. But the critical con-
clusion is different in regard to a number of them. I will
adduce only one. Psalm, cxxxix, which is ascribed to David
150th in the Hebrew and in the Seventy. But only a
slight knowledge of the language is necessary to see that it
is entirely different in style from any other Psalm attributed
to David. The difference is not of a kind that exists between
the various compositions of the same man. The language is
the language of another epoch. If you were to find a poem
of Burns published in Shakespeare's works, you would not
■suppose it Shakespeare's. Shakespeare is versatile, to be
sure. He could vary his style to suit any exigency. But
you know he never wrote like Burns. Now this is not an
-exaggerated statement of the case with this Psalm. I have
•one more instance under this head — the book* of Ecclesiastes.
As you are already familiar with the problem, I will only say
that the postexilic authorship was announced by Luther, and is
accepted by as orthodox scholars as Delitzsch and Ginsburg.
In fact, the argument is as strong as it can possibly be from
style and vocabulary. To suppose Solomon the author of
the book, is about like supposing Spenser to have written In
Memoriam. There can be no question on the other side
that the author assumes the character of Solomon. So that

120 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

we have a clear case of a sacred writer writing under an as-
sumed name. Many Bible students see nothing improper in
an inspired writer using any form of literature, and after
Bunyan's immortal allegory, fiction would seem not to be an
unworthy vehicle of spiritual truth. But if we admit this,
then the theory, that every statement of an inspired writer is
without error in its natural and legitimate sense can not be
maintained.

2. For my second class of facts, I will ask you to look at
the historical books from Joshua to Kings, inclusive. We
have here a series of books which give a connected narrative
for the period from the conquest of Canaan to the Exile. Of
course, it is conceivable that such a narrative should be made
after the method of an official register. Each scribe would
add to the book a sketch of his own time and pass it on to
his successor. It has been supposed by some that the
Hebrew records were kept in this way, but the theory is with-
out support from the facts. The continuity of the narrative
from Joshua to Zedekiah has been secured by editing. • The
method of the redactor is quite plain. He has made up his
story by extracts from already existing documents, making
very little change of himself, but inserting an occasional note
which serves to make the connection clear. As he refers us
to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (or Israel as the case
may be), it is clear that one of his sources was an extensive
historical work bearing this title. But the fact of compilation
is clear in other places than those in which he mentions his
authority. Take for example the book of Judges. Chapter
ii, 6, reads: **Now, when Joshua had sent the people
away, the children of Israel went every man unto his in-
heritance." Then follows t}ie mention of the death and.
burial of Joshua. It is clear that this was originally the be-
ginning of the book. And the book of which this was the
beginning extended through chapter xvi. It was strictly a
book of the Judges. Itself, however, was a compilation as

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 121

is evident from the varying character of its parts. This book,
after it was finished, received two supplements ; one, the story of
Micah, the other, of the war against Benjamin. These belong
chronologi'cally at the beginning of the book, for one is
dated when ^Jonathan, the son of Gershom, and, therefore,
grandson of Moses, was still a young man, which could not
have been long after the death of Joshua. In the other,
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, is High
Priest, and this must have been about the same time. The
• book received also a preface, giving an account of the
gradual conquest of the land. Let me call your attention to
one section only of this preface. It is i, 10-15, ^^^ ^^ ^^^'
tains the account of the conquest of Hebron by Caleb. The
same account is contained in Joshua, xv, 13-19. In one
case Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb ; in the other the children
of Judah went against it ** after the death of Joshua." It is
clear that we have here an inaccuracy in one of the narra-
tives. The difficulties in the history of David are well known.
In one chapter he is already a warrior when invited to the
court to play before Saul. Saul loves him and makes him
his armor bearer. In the other he is a stripling who comes
providentially into camp in time to meet the giant, • and ap-
pears to be wholly unknown to Saul. I know the latter ac-
count is not in the Seventy in the earliest form of that version.
But this only shows the extreme freedom with which the text
was treated at a very late date, and even leaving out the part
not in the Seventy, we still have serious discrepancies.

It is not to emphasize these discrepancies that I call atten-
tion to these facts at this point, but to show the extreme diffi-
culty of applying the theory of inerrancy to documents of
this kind. The theory is that * * all affirmations of Scripture
of all kinds are without any error." Now, what are **the
affirmations of Scripture " in the cases we have been consid-
ering? The theologians are careful to tell us that inerrancy
does not guarantee the truthfuli;iess of the words of Satan in

122 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

Gen. iii, or of the speeches of Job's friends in their argument
with him.

What shall we say of the books we have been discussing?
Where is the point of inerrancy ? Is it in the originals from
which the narrative has been compiled ? Is it in the arrange-
ment ? Is it in the notes of the redactor ? Or is it in all
these ? Some of the advocates of inerrancy have declined to
postulate inerrant transmission, because it would call for a
standing miracle. The continuous influence which would se-
cure original inerrancy for all the documents would be just
such a standing miracle. The Song of Deborah was com-
posed, let us say, 1300 years B. C. The final touches to the
books we are considering were given not earlier than the Ex-
ile, which began about 600 B. C. The materials which are
now in our historical books, therefore, were composed during
a period of seven hundred years. Was there a standing
miracle during all this time ? Or shall we assume that the
final redactor received the gift of inerrancy, so that he
changed the language of his sources so as to leave no inaccu-
racies ? Of this, again, there is no evidence. For, arguing
on the basis of individual style, we discover that the redactor
has generally left unaltered the documents he has embodied
in his narrative. His supervision has generally gone only so
far as to make an occasional note or insert a connecting
phrase. Or does his inerrancy extend simply to the reproduc-
tion, so that our confidence extends only to the accuracy of his
quotation ? This, indeed, is what the critics generally accept.
But it is far from what the advocates of inerrancy claim.
Unless we can assume the standing miracle, the historical
sources of the Old Testament need, in order to discover the
truth of events, the same sort of analysis, sifting, and cross-
questioning that must be given to other sources of history.
And this analysis, sifting, and cross-questioning is precisely —
higher criticism. •

Before we leave this point, let us look at another phase of

BIBLICAL SCHOI^ARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 123

it. Several books of the Old Testament— riiotably the
Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes — labor under the
same difficulty of discovering where the statements of the
author are — those statements which are free from error.
Take the book of Job, for example. It presents us the
picture of a grand trial. The pious sufferer has to contend
with fears within as well as fightings without. It is not only
the speeches of his friends which contain error. Job him-
self loses sight of God. He doubts* His justice and His love.
The author does not make his own opinion heard. He lets
the situation speak to us. The value of the book lies not in
any assertion even of God Himself — sublime as is the truth
He speaks. No ; the value of the book of Job lies in the
spectacle of a human soul in the direst affliction working
through its doubts and at last humbly confessing its weakness
and sinfulness in the presence of its Maker. The inerrancy
is in the truth of the picture presented. It can not be located
in any statement of the author or of any of his characters.
The same is true of the Psalms. They present us a picture
of pious experience in all its phases. We see every variety
of soul in every variety of emotion. The assertions of the
authors can not be taken for absolute truth. Nor can the
authors, though doubtless all were sincere believers in God,
be taken as sinless models for the Christian. Only Christ is
that. The Psalms present us a record of actual experience
of believers in the past. We can study and profit by this
experience all the more that it has in it human weakness.
The subjects of the experience doubtless had the power of
correctly expressing their feelings, but that is not the iner-
rancy which has been claimed for them, and which the theo-
logians desire. The imprecations which have been such a
stumbling block to some are enough to prove this point.

3. So far we have lioticed the difficulty of applying the
theory of inerrancy. We are in a position, however, to go
further. We have, as you know, two parallel histories in the

124 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

Old Testament. One is contained in the books from Genesis
to II Kings ; the other is contained in the books of Chronicles.
These latter, indeed, once were joined with Ezra and Nehe-
miah, so as to form a continuous narrative (if narrative it may
be called, where so much is simply genealogical) from Adam
to the Persian monarchy. But this does not now concern us.
For our present inquiry, we are interested in the two forms of
the history oi Israel as presented on the one side in the books
of Samuel and Kings and on the other in the books of Chroni-
cles. The study of these books shows the method of the au-
thors with a definiteness which leaves nothing to be desired.
We see that the Chronicler had before him our book of Kings as
one of his sources. He takes from it what suits his purpose.
What he takes he generally transfers without material change.
He omits a good deal which does not answer his purpose,
and he inserts a good deal from other sources. He pursues
exactly the plan that is, which we suppose to have been fol-
lowed by the other historical writers. Now compare the fol-
lowing passages:

II Sam. viii: 4. And David took I Chron. xviii : 3. And David

from him i,7cx) horsemen and 20,- took from him 1,000 chariots, and

000 footmen. 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot-
men.

X : 6. The children of Ammon xix : 6. Hanun and the children

sent and hired the Syrians of Beth of Ammon sent 1,000 talents of

Rehob and the Syrians of Zobah silver to hire them chariots and

20,000 footmen, and ^he King of horsemen. So they hired them

Maacah with 1,000 men, and the 32,000 chariots and the King of

men of Tob 1,200 men. Maacah and his men.

x: 18. David destroyed of the xix: 18. David destroyed of the

Syrians 700 chariots. Syrians 7,000 chariots.

xxiv : 9. There were in Israel xxi : 5. There were of all Israel

800,000 valiant men who drew 1,100,000 that drew sword and

sword, and the men of Judah were Judah was 470,000 that drew

500,000. sword.

xxiv: 24. So David bought the xxi: 25. So David gave to Or-

N •

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATIOl^. 125

threshing floor and the oxen for nan for the place 600 shekels of

50 shekels in silver. gold by weight.

I Kings, iv : 26. And Solomon II Chron. ix : 25. And Solomon

had 40,000 stalls for horses. had 4,000 stalls ibr horses and

chariots,
vi : 2. The height [of the house] iii : 4. The height [of the porch]

30 cubits. 120 cubits.

vii : 26. It [the brazen sea] held iv : 5. It received and held 3,000

2,000 baths. . baths.

Now, it will be said at once that these are all discrepancies
in numbers which are very liable to corruption, and that,
therefore, these are all cases of error in transmission. But I
ask you to notice that these are all but one, cases in which the
larger number is in the text of the Chronicler. Where the
age of a king or the length of his reign is concerned I have
not taken account of the difference. But in matters of sta-
tistics it is curious that the errors should be nearly all one
way. Remembering that the Chronicler was much further
away in time from the events narrated, we find it natural that
he should have an exaggerated idea of the resources of his
country in the days of her glory. In the case of David's
purchase of the field of Oman, he finds the price a niggardly
one for a prince to pay. He, therefore, does not hesitate
(supposing that a mistake has been made) to put in 'a larger
sum. Of course, we need not lay this to the charge of the
final redactor of the book. He had probably before him other
written elaborations of the history in which his exaggerated
idea of the past was already embodied. The personal equation
is as difficult to suppress in the historian as is individuality of
style. Why should one be overruled any more than the other ?
The Chronicler lived in a time when the Mosaic Law had
taken substantially the position we find it occupying in
the New Testament times. Piety was to him the observance
of this law. He looked back through this medium to David
and Solomon and the good kings of their line. He had lost

126 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

all interest in the Israel of the Ten Tribes, because they had
disappeared from his vision or lived only in the heretical
Samaritans of his time. Now, we all know how difl&cult it
is to picture to ourselves a different piety from our own.
Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, we pictiure to ourselves
as an enlightened Christian of the nineteenth century. We
do not like to confess that he was guilty of deception, or that
Jacob, the Prince of God, took an unfair advantage of his
own brother. So with the Chronicler. He could think of
David only as a saint of his own pattern. Therefore, he
does not copy from the older history the shadows that rest
upon David's life. His adultery, the trouble with Amnon, the .
usurpation of Absalom and of Adonijah, the charge of ven-
geance delivered to Solomon — these are left out of his history
altogether. To him David is the nursing father of the legiti-
mate priesthood and the virtual builder of the Temple. But
you will say this does not give us error in the record. Let
me, then, call attention to the following :

I Kings ix: 1 1. Solomon gave II Chron. viii : 2. The cities
Hiram 30 cities in the land of Gal- which Hiram gave Solomon, Solo-
ilee. mon built them and caused the

children of Israel to dwell there.

XV : 14. But the high places II Chron. xiv : 3. For he took

were not taken away. Neverthe- away the strange altars and the

less, the heart of Asa was perfect high places (cf. v. 5: Also he

with the Lord all his days. took away out of all the cities of

Judah the high places).

These certainly look on their face like direct 'contradictions,
and if we allow for the personal equation of which I have
spoken we can easily explain them. It would be hard in-
deed for a Jew of the Persian period to imagine Solomon giv*
ing away the sacred territory of Israel to the heathen king.
Rather must he suppose the mighty Solomon to be the re-
cipient of gifts of territory. The same line of reasoning is

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 127

followed in the second quotation. The high places were the
old sanctuaries of Jehovah, regarded as legitimate before the
building of the Temple even by the author of the book of
Kings (i Kings iii : 2), and used without reserve by Samuel.
As time went on they fell more and more into disrepute, and
after the Exile the requirements of the Law were carried out,
and the only sanctuary of the people was the temple at Jeru-
salem. The remembrance of the high places was pnly that
of illegitimate places of worship. The Chronicler and his
generation could not imagine a good king as even tolerating
them.. Hence the change in his account. Allow me to call
your attention to one more instance. If you will compare
the ti;^o accounts of the coronation of the young King Jeho-
ash, which are found in 2 Kings xi: 4-16, and 2 Chron. xxiii :
1-15, you will be struck by some remarkable differences. As
you will remember, the Queen Mother had, on the death of
Ahaziah, slain all the male members of the royal family except
the infant Jehoash, and .had herself seized the kingdom. The
young prince who escaped the massacre was kept in conceal-
ment until his seventh year, when, by the efforts of Jehoiada,
the High Priest, he was seated upon the throne, and the
usurping queen was slain. The account in the book of Kings
is as follows :

**And in the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the
captains over hundreds of the Carites and of the Runners
and brought them to the House of Jehovah and made a
covenant with them and made them take an oath and
showed them the king's son. And he commanded them
saying: This is the thing ye shall do. The third part
of you that come in on the Sabbath and keep the guard
of the palace . . . and the two parts of you that go
forth on the Sabbath and keep the guard of the House of
Jehovah [shall come] unto the king. And ye shall surround
the king each with his weapons in his hand, and he that comes
within the ranks shall be put to death, and ye shall be with

128 BIBLICAL ' SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

the king when he goes out and when he comes in. And the
captains of hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the
Priest commanded them. And they took each his men —
those coming in on the Sabbath with those going out on the
Sabbath and came to Jehoiada the Priest (and the Priest gave
them David's armor of state) and .the Runners stood each
with his weapons in his hand from the south side of the House
to the north side of the House about the House and the altar,
round about the king. And he brought out the king and
placed' upon him the diadem and the testimony and made
him king and anointed him. And they clapped their hands
and said : Long live the king !"

The history here is so plain there can be no mistaking.
The principal actors are the officers of the body-guard with
their men. This body of soldiers is divided, as was the case
also in David's time, into three companies. These take their
turn in guarding the Temple and the palace, one-thir^ being
on duty at one point and two-thirds at the other. The Sab-
bath is the day when they exchange one post for the other,
and it is probable that on that day, when the multitude at the
temple is larger, two companies are on duty there and only one
company at the palace, while during the week the reverse is the
case. Jehoiada, after showing the three centurions that the
rightful heir to the throne is still alive, agrees that the company
on duty at the temple, instead of going down to the palace,
shall remain. When the other two companies come up from
the palace, therefore, the whole body-guard will be around the
young king, and Athaliah will be left without soldiers. The
plan is carried out, and Athaliah, hearing the noise, comes un-
attended to the temple, because she has no soldiers at her com-
mand. This account, then, makes the matter the business
of the body-guard, with which (except the High Priest) priests
and people have nothing to do. How now does the Chron-
icler see the incident? In his account the Carites and Run-
ners disappear. Jehoiada counsels indeed with certain cap-

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 129

tains of hundreds, but who they are does not distinctly
appear. Instead of collecting troops, they go about the
country arid gather all the Levites and the heads of fathers'
houses. It is a matter in which the whole people therefore
take part. The account goes on :

**And all the congregation made a covenant with the king
in the house of God. And he said unto them : Behold th^
king's son shall reign as Jehovah hath spoken concerning the
sons of David. This is the thing which ye shall do. The
third part of you that come in on the Sabbath of the Priests
and of the Levites shall be at the outer gates. And a third of
you shall be in the palace, ^nd a third part in the gate Jesod,
and all the people shall be in the courts of the house of Jehovah.
But let them not come into the House except the priests and
those ministering to the Levites — they may come in because
they are holy; and let all the people keep the guard of Je-
hovah. And let the Levites surround the king each with his
weapons in his hands, and he that cometh into the house shall
be put to death, and let them be with the king when he com-
eth in and when he goeth out. And the Levites and all Judah
did according to all that Jehoiada the Priest commanded."

Now it is perfectly clear that there is a discrepancy in the
two accounts. In one the main (in fact the only) actors be-
sides Jehoiada are the, royal guard. They come into the
temple, they surr<5und the king, they guard him and pro-
claim him king, and they kill Athaliah. Ip the other account
the body-guard is not even mentioned. The captains of hun-
dreds seem to be Levitical chiefs. They gather the Levites
from the^ whole country. These do exactly what in the other
account is attributed to the mercenaries. Yet in spite of the
conspiracy being known to all the Levites and all Judah,
Athaliah has no inkling of it and comes unattended into the
temple. The account in Kings is the original, and the devi-
ations are due to the point of view of the Chronicler. In
the time before the exile, as we know from various sources,
9

130 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

there was no scruple (in practice at least) against the entrance
of foreigners into the temple. Ezekiel distinctly denounces
this as one of the customs of the time before the captivity.
** Thus saith the Lord God : O ye house of Israel, let it suf-
fice you of all your abominations in that ye have brought in
aliens uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to b6
in my sanctuary to profane it when ye offer my bread, the
fat and the blood." The earlier kings, therefore, had guarded
the temple with their own troops. But the stringency with
which the later Jews guarded the temple from profanation
made the Chronicler unable to realize this. Especially that a
High Priest should have called upon the royal troops for serv-
ice in the temple seemed to him incredible. He supposed
the Levites must have been called upon for this service, and
hence he substituted them in the text.^ It is clear that we
can not ascribe freedom from error to the statements of a
book compiled in this way. You will say then it should be
cast out of the Canon. To which I reply, by no means.
The book of Chronicles is invaluable to us not for what it
directly teaches, but for the light it throws indirectly upon its
own time. What the Jews of the Persian monarchy were
thinking, how they regarded the older history, how they were
preparing the way for the Scribes and Pharisees, for the cruci-
fixion and the Roman war, for the Talmud and Barkochba —

^ As some questions have been raised by my assertions about the
Chronicler, I will add that of course I do not suppose him guilty of
intentional falsification of the record. He had before him, it would
appear, a considerable literature which had commented on the history
in the spirit of the time — his changes are made from these documents.
The ideas which govern this literature were a part of the mental furni-
ture of the Chronicler himself. His inspiration, which made him
a source of religious edification to his contemporaries, and which
makes his work still a part of the infallible rule of faith, did not correct
his historical point of view any more than it corrected his scientific point
of view, which no doubt made the earth the center of the solar system.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 131

ttiis is made known to us in the book of Chronicles and by
almost no other book of the Bible. But it is made known to
us by reading between the lines ; that is to say, by consider-
ing and weighing not what the author says of others, but by
what he betrays of himself. What is the truth of history,
my friends ? Is it simply the narrative of events definitely
defined, and labeled, and arranged in order ? Is it a cata-
logue of kings, of each of which it records that he was
born and made war and died? Is it not rather a
series of pictures each of which describes an age with its
thoughts, its aspirations, its ideals ? If 'so, sacred history can
not be made up by a string of inerrant statements. It must
show unconsciously and by suggestion the spirit that informs
the church of God and makes it live and grow. To secure
us an inerrant chronicle of dates and names would not give
us this history. To give us the pictures of the men drawn
by themselves is to give us this history. To discover these
pictures, and to locate them, and set them in their true light,
is the work of Biblical Theology working by criticism.

And now I must be prepared to hear an objection urged
against the view here presented. If we can not trust the
Bible to be accurate in minor details we can not trust it in
any thing. If we must give up one we must give up all. In
reply to this I say, first, that a very large number of able
and evangelical theologians do not admit this. Many of
those who hold the most rigid theory of inspiration say ex-
pressly that the admission of chronological or historical er- ,
rors would not invalidate the infallible authority of the Bible.
. To substantiate this let me name Richard Baxter who for
himself says that he believes all errors now in the text to
have come in by transmission. I quote from the * * Reasons
for the Christian Religion " the following :

" But tfiose men who think that these human imperfections
of the writers do extend further, and may appear in some by-
passages of chronologies or history which are no part of the

132 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

rule of faith and life, do not hereby destroy the Christian
cause. For God might/ enable his apostles to an infallible
recording and preaching of the Gospel, even all things neces-
sary to salvation, though he had not made them infallible in
every by-passage and circumstances any more than they were
indefectible in life. As for them that say, * I can believe no
man in any thing who is mistaken in one thing, at least, as
infallible, they speak against common sense and reason ; for
a man may be infallibly acquainted with some things who is
nt)t so in all. A historian may infallibly acquaint me that
there was a fight at Lepanto, . . . who can not tell me
all the circumstances of it. . . . I do not believe that
any man can prove the least error in the holy Scripture in
any point according to its true intent and meaning ; but if he
could, the Gospel, as a rule of faith and life in things neces-
sary to salvation, might be, nevertheless, proved infallible by
all the evidences before given. "^ Without investigating a
large number of theologians who are quoted* as making sim-
. lar concessions, I will only call your attention to the fact that
Christian Apologetics declares that the great things of Script-
ure can be proved without assuming the inerrancy of the rec-
ord at all. President Patton, of Princeton, holds this view,
as is well known. * * I must take exception to the disposition
on the part of some (he says) to stake the fortunes of Chris-
tianity on the doctrine of inspiration. Not that I yield to

^ The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, London, 1830,
VoL XXI, p. 349.

' The author of the article. Inspiration^ in McClintock and Strong's
Cyclopaedia, says: ** Others have gone so far as to avow that the value
of the religious element in the revelation would not be. lessened if er-
rors were acknowledged in the scientific and miscellaneous matter
which accompanies it. Among those who have held this form of the
theory are Baxter, Tillotson, Doddridge, Warburton ; Bishops Horsley,
Randolph, and WhAtely, Hampden, Thirlwall, Bishop Heber, Dr.
Pye Smith, Thomas Scott, and Dean Alford."

BIBUCA.L SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 133

any one in profound conviction of the truth and importance
of the doctrine. But it is proper for us to bear in mind the ^
immense argumentative advantage which Christianity has
aside altogether from the inspiration of the documents on
which it rests. "^ According to President Patton, then, so far
from its being true that, unless the Bible be inerrant in every
detail, we must give up its testimony to the matters of greater
weight — so far from this being true, we might give up the in-
spiration altogether, and still have the assurance of these
greater matters.

But, when a thing is said to be unthinkable, the best way
to answer the assertion is to show that' it has been thought.
Some say they can not conceive a Bible that can be relied on
in matters of faith and morals, without making it infallibly
true on points of chronology, history, and natural science.
To this I reply : Many men have received the Bible, and do
receive the Bible,^ as their infallible authority who do not
actually attribute to it, and who have not actually attributed
to it, inerrancy in minor matters. This is true, as I^have al-
ready said, of the Reformers. It is dangerous to cite a Ger-
man in this connection. But tlie time was when Tholuck
was honored in America as a defender of the faith. Tholuck
declared himself decidedly* against the absolute inerrancy
of Scripture. Among living theologians, Luthardt has earned
the gratitude of the Protestant Church at large by his fruitful
labors in varied fields of research. Luthardt declares that
the older theology ** certainly went too far." Van Oosterzee
was, during his life, the representative of the Orthodox party

* Patton, The Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 22.

' In the article cited above. I might add here that among those who
do not assert inerrancy, ** but limit inspiration to such matters as di-
rectly pertain to the proper material of revelation, i. e,y to strictly re-
ligious truth," are to be found (according to McClintock and Strong)
John Howe, Bishop Williams, Burnet, Lowth, Bishop Watson, Law,
Barrow, Conybeare, Bloomfield, and others.

t

134 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

in the Reformed church of Holland, yet he declares that
* errors and inaccuracies in matters of subordinate import-
once are undoubtedly to be found in the Bible. A Luther,
a Calving a Coccejus, among the older theologians; aTholuck,
a Neander, a Lange, a Stier, among the more modern ones,
have admitted this without hesitation."' And in our own
country there has recently been published a book, by a care-
ful investigator, which, while an able defense of ** Super-
natural Revelation," declines to assert inerrancy. ' The
author says: *'As to the meaning of OeoTTi^euaTO^ [in i Tim.
iii : i6], there is not, and can not be any material difference
of opinion. The chief difference relates rather to the object
and degree of inspiration, whether it is the writings or the
writers that are inspired ; and whether the inspiration secures
absolute infallibility or not. From the word itself, however, as
EUicott, Warrington, and others properly insist, we 'can not
infer a verbal inspiration,' such as the older theologians
taught" (p. 299, sq.; the italics are mine). Again, after de-
fining the '* deliverance of the Christian judgment in favor
of the general and special trustworthiness of the New Testa-
ment in its descriptions [note !] of Christ and the Christian
revelation," the author goes on to say: **Does this mean
now that every thing, without exception, that is found in the
Scripture is to be accepted as absolute, unadulterated truth ?
Is all critical inquiry into the historical and scientific accuracy
or logical soundness of Biblical utterances to be cut off? By
no means. The Bible was written by imperfect and fallible
men 3 and it is only by the use of the rational and critical

^ Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, I, p. 205. It is worth noting
that the latest defense of inerrancy comes from Germany, by Rohnert,
noticed in the Independent, of March 5, 1891.

^ Supernatural Revelation, an Essay concerning the basis of the
Christian Faith, by C. M. Mead, Lectures on the L. P. Ston^ Founda-
tion, delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 135

judgment that Christians have come to regard it of excep-
tional trustworthiness.

* * If the same method of examination should reveal occasional
instances of discrepancy and error, this would be nothing more
than what might be expected, unless it has been demonstrated
that the writers were so inspired as to make them absolutely in-
fallible. But no such demonstration has ever been made "

(p. 330 sq.).

But if you still feel that the Concession of minor- errors en-
dangers the spiritual truth, let me ask you to notice the sim-
ilar line of argument that might have been followed in the
past, but which has not actually resulted in the overthrow of
the Scriptures or of the Church.

Suppose an inquirer comes to you with the question how
you know the Old Testament Apocrypha not to be part of
the Bible. You explain to him the history of the Jewish
Canon and the testimony of the New Testament. He asks,
*'has the Church not actually accepted these books as
Scripture at some periods of its history, and have not some
eminent theologians used them as the Word of God?" You
will be compelled to answer in the affirmative. If, now,
your inquirer, says, *' well, if God can not guarantee his
Word so that His Church can tell exactly what it is, then I
can not be sure that any of it is His," how will you answer
him ? Surely you would not admit that this uncertainty, even
in a matter of sjich importance as the extent of the Canon,
invalidates the Bible.

Or if a Bible student comes to you with the Revised Ver-
sion and complains that the Bible has 'been mutilated by the
omission of the passage concerning ** three that bear witness
in heaven," what will you do? You will explain the process
of transmission by manuscript. You will tell him that the
verse is no part of the original Scripture, but has crept into
some copies by mistake. If now he says, * * if God can not
secure his Word from errors of copyists, I can not rely upon

136 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. .

any part of it," what will you say? You will not admit this
argument either, though it is precisely your own in case of
admitted historical errors.

But, again, if one inquire why the Revised Version gives
so many marginal renderings, some quite different from the
text, you may be compelled to explain to him that the
Hebrew is in some respects an imperfect language ; that it
has but two tenses for example, so that the time of an action
is often difficult to define as exactly as we should like; that,
moreover, the Hebrew script was at first very defective, and
though it has been admirably supplemented by the system of
points, yet there is reason to think the points sometimes in
the wrong. After all this, he might take your line of argu-
ment and say : **If God could not express this revelation
more accurately than that, I can not depend upon it at all.*'
But would he be right ?

Now, all these are admittedly true. The Canon had no
such authentication (so far as we know), as we should have
insisted upon had it been a human document to be handed
down as an authority. The text has not been preserved from
error in transmission, and it was committed to a language of
limited powers of expression and to a script peculiarly liable
to ambiguity. But we all hold that it is, nevertheless, to ug^
the infallible rule of faith and practice. If we suppose that
the human factor, even in the autographs, showed traces of
human fallibility, I do not see that that invalidates the rule
of faith.

But now I want to call your attention to certain grave con-
sequences of insisting that inspiration implies absolute iner-
rancy. The first is that* this insistance may drive some to an
utter rejection of the whole revelation, because they suppose
themselves to discover a single contradiction in the Scriptures
themselves or a single statement that conflicts with the estab-
lished facts of natural science or of profane history. Dr.
Evans has already alluded to this, and I will not enlarge

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP ANb INSPIRATION. 137

tipon it. Only it should be observed that the chances for
error in the Old Testament are much greater than in the
New Testament. The Old Testament took form in a cruder
state of society and its books cover a much greater period
of time than is the case in the New Testament. We should
naturally expect greater difficulties in the Old Testament.
The caution exercised with regard to a priori theories in re-
gard to the New Testament commends itself with double
force when we come to the Old.

A second danger of insisting upon the doctrine of iner-
rancy is that it reverses the order of the two principles of the
Protestant Church. As we have seen, the vital principle of
the Reformation was Justification by Faith. The formative
principle was the sufficiency of Scripture as the Rule of Faith.
If, now, you invert them and put the Scripture first, do
you not endanger the faith in Christ ? In practice I do not
believe this is done. If an iaquirer comes to a pastor, he is
not met with the demand to believe the Scripture to be in-
fallible in its every statement, but with the exhortation to be-
lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and this on the ground of the
simple historical testimony of the Scriptures as the testimony
of honest witnesses. But, is not the central point in the
Christian life the central point in theology also ? And I will
confess here the surprise with which I discovered what I think
to be a grave defect in the theology of the distinguished Dr.
Hodge. If you will read that author's discussion of the sub-
ject of Faith, you will acknowledge, I think, that it suffers
from just this defect. Dr. Hodge defines faith as "the per-
suasion of the truth founded on testimony," and then adds:
**The faith of the Christian is the persuasion of the truth of
the facts and doctrines recorded in the Scriptures on the tes-
timony of God." * A little later he says that the faith which
secures eternal life ** is founded not on the external or the

* Systematic Theology, III, pp. 67, 68.

138 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

moral evidence of the truth, but on the testimony of the
Spirit with and by the truth to the renewed soul." Further
on he gives the correct definition : * * To believe that Christ
is God manifest in the flesh ... is to receive Him as
our God. This includes the apprehension and conviction of
His divine glory and the adoring reverence, love, confidence,
and submission, which are due to God alone." But how this
can be reconciled with the other definition, I do not see.
But suppose they mean the same thing. Dr. Hodge, as we
have seen, declares all the assertions of Scripture free from
error. If, now, faith is believing the facts and doctrines
recorded in the Scriptures on the testimony of God, the life
of faith becomes simply a mental effort to hold on to these
facts. The young Christian studies his Bible and finds some
things which seem to him contradictory. -According to this
theory, he must believe there is no error or he loses his
Christian faith. He must hold on to the Bible (jt will be
said) no matter what science says or secular history, or the
evidence of his own common sense. This is not the faith of
Luther or of Paul or of the Shorter Catechism which declares
that ** Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we re-
ceive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered to
us in the Gospel." What the pastor in his ministrations de-
sires to awaken and foster in his converts is this faith in Jesus
Christ.

All Scripture is God-inspired — true ! But the remarkable
thing is that the text affirms more than this. All Scripture is
not only God-inspired, but all Scripture is ^^ profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is
in righteousness : that the man of God may be complete,
furnished completely unto every good work. " This seems to
me the hardest part of it. I find no difficulty in supposing
the list of Dukes of Edom God-inspired, even though in the
original autograph it had some names wrongly placed. But
do you make it profitable for instruction in righteousness?

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 139

Do you make it profitable ^ to yourself for completely furnish-
ing yourself to every good work? If not, you can not
lightly condemn me for not drawing your deduction from its
inspiration. Surely, you would not allow me to censure you
for not practicing upon your own confession of its profit-

. 1 Every one knows that the profitableness of all Scripture is not real-
ized in ordinary Christian experience. A brilliant lecturer says that
once, when eating a very fine shad, one of the company began to ques-
tion him about his faith in Scripture. The questioner held up one
difl&culty after another and asked, *' What do you do with this?" The
reply was: "I treat it as I do the bones in my fish— I quietly lay it
one side." In practice, this is what every one does. The soul does
not feed on genealogical tables or lists of forgotten kings, no matter
how strenuously it believes that they are all profitable for instruction
in righteousness. Nor does the preacher make use of these in his
work — though there is a tradition that a sermon was once preached on
the ** nine and twenty knives " brought up from the captivity, and
another on **the night-hawk, the owl, and the cuckoo," from the list
of unclean birds. In practical Christian experience and edification,
some things in the Bible are quietly left at one side.

Now, if a comparative anatomist were to study the shad, the bones
would become of the first importance to him. It would hardly be
■necessary for the bystander to remonstrate with him for spending so
much time on Uae bones which contain no nutriment. But we, as stu-
dents of the Scripture, are precisely in this condition. We suppose
the very things which the ordinary Christian may quietly leave unused
— we suppose these to throw light on the structure of Scripture. When
"we bring them forward with this purpose, we are met by the assertion
that" these can not be what they seem to be — discrepancies can not
€xist. In other words, it is persistently asserted that there can be no
l)ones in the fish — that it is all good ; therefore we must swallow
l)ones and all, or at least must pound the bones fine by some reconcil-
ing hypothesis and then declare them good meat.

The Lord Jesus at one time met the disciples when they were hun-
gry and gave them a piece of fish broiled on the coals. Were he to
bring me such a gift, I should expect to find it excellent fish. Should
I therefore expect to find it unlike any other fish in structure?
Would it be disloyalty to him to stop and look for the bones ?

140 BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

ableness. How- to make all Scripture profitable is at least as
important a question and it is a more practical question than
how to establish its absolute inerrancy.

And here is to the theological teacher the most serious
question of all. To insist upon a constant assertion and de-
fense of the inerrancy of Scripture is to turn the whole
science of exegesis into a study of harmonistics. No doubt
infidelity is constantly alleging contradictions and discrepan-
cies that do not exist. For that reason, I would be slow to
urge those which I suppose to exist. But to spend one's
time in hypotheses designed to show how discrepancies may
be reconciled is generally a fruitless task.

The truth frankly acknowledged is the truth's own best de-
fense. But it is to be expected that we shall discover some
new truth. It is the duty of the special student to announce
the discovery. That he will sometimes be hasty, sometimes
will be one-sided, is to be expected. And it is to be expected
that his positions will be attacked. It is desirable that they
be attacked, for it is by discussion that the truth is advanced*
I am sure no one in a theological chair in the Presbyterian
Church could object to the sharpest discussion of his pub-
lished views. Indeed, he would welcome it, as a means of
clarifying his own statements. But the discussion ought to
discuss statements and not persons. In this revision year,
we have heard much of the liberty given by the subscription
to our standards. Is this a liberty to those only who agree
with us, to those only who do not believe the Pope of Rome
to be Antichrist, or even to those only who investigate the
problems of theology ** in order to vindicate the truth as held
by our Church ?" These questions must be answered by our
pastors and elders, for they bear rule in the House of God.
For one, I can say I want to have them answered rightly,
not only for my own sake and the sake of the institution I
serve, but for the sake of the whole Church of God and for

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION. 141

the sake of His truth. And so I end where my friend 1t)egan.
In order to progress, there must be sympathy and confidence
between pastors and professors. The work is one. Our
aim is one. We must all account to the one Lord, ** whose
we are and whom we serve." May He help us to know His
truth and to do His will !

142 THE DEBATE.

CHAPTER V.

THE DEBATE.

The question at issue is the doctrine of inspiration. This
doctrine endeavors to explain the genesis of Scripture from
the divine side. The formal principle of the Reformation,
that the Bible is the norm of Christian belief, is asserted in
all the Protestant Confessions. It is such a norm because
God speaks through it to the believer. Faith apprehends
the voice of God in Scripture without the mediation of Church
or priest. Affirmations of this fact are frequent in the
works of the Reformers. But in the century after the
Reformation a great development of dogmatic and polemic
theology took place. The doctrine of the Word of Ood vrritten
was carried to its utmost extreme. Logically of course it is
easy to argue:

The whole Bible is the Word of God.

Therefore it can contain no error.

On this ground the theory of verbal dictation became a
prominent theory with the dogmatic theologians. It is an
attractive theory because it gives (in appearance) so firm a
basis for revealed theology. Verbal inspiration, as it is
called, is still the favorite with a few theologians. But it is
so glaringly opposed by the facts that it is not held as con-
fidently as it once was. On this theory it would be logically
impossible to account for differences of style in the different
books of the Bible. If the Holy Spirit suggested not only
the truths but the words to be uttered, all alike should be
in the one style of the Holy Spirit. The tendency of late

\

THE DEBATE. 143

years therefore has been to jnodify the doctrine into plenary
inspiration. This word has been claimed by some who limit
inspiration to those matters which concern faith and morals.
But it is with more propriety taken by those who, while allow-
ing such differences of style las show themselves on the sur-
face of Scripture, yet claim that entire truthfulness or accu-
racy is preserved in eyery assertion made by the authors of
Scripture. The theory allows of some variety. It is by
some reduced in parts of Scripture to a simple superintend-
ence of the record. By others it is still held that whatever the
Scripture contains was directly revealed to the authors even
where it was already known to them by their own experience.
The distinction, says a standard writer on this subject, ** at-
tempted to be drawn between what in Scripture was pre-
viously known to the writers of Scripture and those portions
of its contents which previously were either unknown to
them or undiscoverable by them has been very extensively ac-
cepted, and used freely to discriminate between what is a
revelation and what is not, in the volume of the Bible." But
he adds after a discussion: "A very slight consideration is
sufficient to show that, so far as regards the sacred volume,
and' the question of its character as a supernatural communi-
cation from God, such distinctions have no real existence,
and can not be applied except by an arbitrary and entirely
hypothetical method of criticism, which would constitute
each man's religious instincts the arbiter." Later he adds :
** The divine authority and ability to write which were given
them of God, cover every thing that they have recorded in
Scripture, and cover it equally with the sanction of the Most
High ; and therefore constitute not particular passages, or a
certain class of truths to the exclusion of others, a revela-
tion, but constitute them a revelation all alike."* The arti-

* Bannerman on Inspiration, pp. 175, 176, 179.

144 THE DEBATE.

ficial nature of such a hypothesis is seen at a glance, and
its contradiction of the facts that lie on the surface of
Scripture. For it is evident that the authors of the Bible
often assert the activity of theif own memories, relate events
as eye-witnesses, or claim to have them on the testimony of
others. Hence, the attempt to modify the theory so as to
admit these facts while preserving entire historic truthful-
ness — an unique historical truthfulness — for every assertion
of the Bible. In this form the doctrine has been asserted
since the reunion of the Presbyterian churches by Professors
Hodge and Warfield in an article in the Presbyterian Re-
view. As stated in this article the doctrine is not concerned
with the accuracy of our present Bible, but interests itself
in affirming a perfection of the original autographs which
has in some cases at least been lost in transmission. The
reason for this shifting of ground is two-fold. First is the
advance of textual criticism and the evidence of its progress
in the Revised New Testament. It is now patent even to the
English reader that the text of the Bible has not been pre-
served so absolutely pure as we are inclined to expect in so
precious a document. In the second place, it is convenient to
seek in possible textual corruption an explanation for those
troublesome discrepancies and inaccuracies which are ** every
where apparent on the surface " of Scripture.

None the less does the new theory depart widely from the
Confessional doctrine. That the Word of God as we npw
have it in Scripture is infallible for the purposes for which it
is given — this b the affirmation of the Confession. Its inter-
est is in the present Bible for present purposes, and those
purposes are practical purposes. That an inerrant autograph
once existed is a speculative assertion, interested in establish-
ing a supposed . perfection which no longer exists, and which
may conceivably (and even probably) never be recovered.

THE DEBATE. ,145

This speculative assertion of original inerrancy is therefore a
new doctrine though claiming to be the doctrine of the uni-
versal Church. That it is not affirmed in the Confession is
implicitly affirmed by the Committee on Revision of the Con-
fession. For this committee proposes to amend the Confession
by inserting a clause which will affirm ** the truthfulness of
the history" contained in the Scriptures. This proposal is
worthy of notice. It is to insert two clauses in the first chap-
ter (Section V), making it read : " And the truthfulness of the
history, the faithful witness of prophecy and miracle, the heaven-
liness of the matter . . . and the entire perfection
thereof are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God." The new words (which are here
in italics) are designed to affirm the historic trustworthiness of
Scripture, and the actual fulfillment of prophecy. As a
matter of fact, they only affirm such historic trustworthiness
as will evidence the Scriptures to be the Word of God. One
who accepts them does not thereby affirm absolute inerrancy,
unless he takes absolute inerrancy to be necessary to give
such evidence. It is doubtful also whether such phrases can
be made a part of the system of doctrine. The majesty of
the style which is made another of those evidences could not
be so enforced. The remarkable thing therefore is not so
much that we have this confession on the part of an able and
conservative committee — the confession that the doctrine of
inerrancy is not in the present standards of the Church ; but
that they were willing to supply the lack by so mild an obiter
dictum as the one proposed.

But we have no evidence that the new doctrine of in-
errant autographs has ever been enforced as a test of doctrinal
soundness. And this is significant in view of the attitude of
former New School men. The leading theologian of that
branch of the Church — Dr. Henry B. Smith — while himself
10

146 • THE DEBATE.

«

holding to a high doctrine of inspiration, nowhere intimates
that such a doctrine is essential to the Evangelical faith or to
the system of doctrine subscribed by our ministers. He is
fully conscious of the difficulties in the theory of verbal in-
spiration. In an article in the American Presbyterian Re-
view (April, 1864), he gives the following no^e : ** Carson on
Inspiration, p. 132, says in reference to the inscription on the
cross differently given by each evangelist : * If the four ac-
counts are all substantially true and would not discredit any
four uninspired men, they may, without any disparagement
to God be all the language of the Holy Spirit.' But did not
{he Holy Spirit know exactly just how the words readV* The
question of Dr. Smith, which I have italicized, gives the in-
superable objection to the theory of verbal inspiration. And
it is so forcibly put that it shows the author's perception of
the difficulty. Toward the close of the article he says : ** For
the last fifty years or more, the effort has rather been to
accommodate the theory of inspiration to what is called the
human side, the individuality of the writers, the diversities
of narratives, the critical difficulties disclosed by the processes
of Biblical criticism. The divine authority and unity, the
inspiring life of the Bible, have been comparatively neg-
lected. There is at present little danger of the prevalence
of any too strict view of inspiration : the tendency is rather
to an increased laxity of thought and statement. The whole
subject needs to be discussed anew and afresh." We see that
the leading New School theologian craved a new discussion
of the subject. In his familiarity with German theology he
saw the tendency to too lax a view. He adds: **A pro-
founder study of the subject may lead to the conclusion that
the older theory has elements of simplicity, unity, and adapta-
tion to man's permanent religious wants which are not found
in most of the modern treatises." What he would have said

N

THE DEBATE. 147

to the effort to rehabilitate the older theory by ecclesiastical
process we can hardly doubt.

In the year of the reunion the New School Review, edited
by Henry B. Smith, contained an article by the Rev. C. A.
Briggs on Biblical Theology. This article contains the fol-
lowing language : ** Biblical Theology has entirely modified
the doctrine of the nature and use of the Scriptures ; in es-
timating the human element and iudividual peculiarities it
has shown that the old idea of inspiration is untenable. We
can no longer believe in an inspiration of the very words, let-
ters, and signs of Scripture, or that the Biblical writers were
merely passive instruments of the Holy Spirit, scribes writ-
ing from dictation." (April, 1870, p. 304.) It is inconceiv-
able that at such a time Henry B. Smith would admit such
language into his review if he supposed that the Confessional
doctrine was already fixed, and that to tamper with it was to
iuterfere with the -system of doctrine to which Presbyterian
ministers subscribe. The article of Prof. Bascom, on ** In-
spiration and the Historic Element in the Scriptures," in the
January number of the same review, is much stronger evi-
dence in the same direction. This vigorous plea for a recast-
ing of the doctrine of inspiration was indeed written by a
Congregationalist ; but it could hardly have been admitted
with propriety to the pages of a review which was supposed
to represent Presbyterian thought, had it been subversive of
Presbyterian doctrine. We are authorized to conclude,
therefore, that the New School Church came into its new re-
lations without any such idea of the fundamental importance
o? inerrancy as has lately been claimed for it. And even
pronounced conservatives admit that the doctrinal lines must
not be more closely drawn in the reunited Church than in
either half before the reunion.

If Dr. Evans were alive, he would be able to give some

148 THE DEBATE.

testimony as to what was allowed in the New School branch,
for he was ordained in that body, and was an honored pro-
fessor in one of its seminaries some years before the reunion.
It is known to his friends that at his ordination he declined
to accept verbal inspiration. In fact, there is every evidence
that his views were always those which he announced in his
essay. I myself remember his saying, more than ten years
ago, that he accepted the Scriptures as an infallible rule of
faith and practice, and not as infallible in their every state-
ment. This case is noteworthy, because it shows how high
an idea of inspiration may be held by one who distinctly re-
jects inerrancy. To affirm ** that there must be inerrancy or
there is no inspiration," seemed to him the height of absurd-
ity. If not made evident from the essay itself, this would
be clear from his previous paper on the ** Doctrinal Signifi-
cance of the Revision." (Presb. Review, April, 1883.) In
this essay he, maintains that the revised translation of 2 Tim.
iii, 16, does not favor a limitation of inspiration. **An unin-
spired Scripture would have been, to a Jew of the Christian
era, a. phrase no less self-contradictory than an uncircumcised
Pharisee. Every Scripture is ipso facto inspired, God-
breathed." Later he says : ** Elsewhere the Revision brings
into clearer prominence the theopneustic agency of the Di-
vine Spirit in Scripture. The more distinct personification
of Scripture also can not fail to indicate more clearly the Di-
vine Personality which Scripture represents. The substitu-
tion of through the prophet for by the prophet tends to emphasize
the medial character of the prophetic function, representing
the prophet as the mouthpiece of God. In like manner, the
substitution of in for by indicates still, more vividly the vital
internal possession of the human agency by the Divine,
whether on the one side the Divine Agent is located in the
man, or on the other side, the human agent in the Divine.

THE DEBATE. 149

In 1 Cor. li. 11, we have, according to the preference of the
American Revisers, a striking recognition of the influence of
the Spirit upon the very words of the Apostles ; * Combin-
ing spiritual things with spiritual words/ where the whole
context deques spintval SiSy proceeding from the Spirit .
In these and parallel directions there is a marked enlarge-
ment of Scripture's own testimony to its own real, vital, all-
pervasive inspiration."

To those who hold that inspiration must secure inerrancy
this language is incomprehensible as coming from one who
declines to draw that conclusion. But that the language can
be used by one who declines to affirm inerrancy is evident
from the same paper. For the very next paragraph goes on
to say ** On the other hand, there are features of the Re-
vision which lead as decidedly to a fuller recognition of the
freedom of the human agency in inspiration. Of special im-
portance in this connection is the restoration of original dis-
crepancies or inexactnesses in passages in which corrections
have been made in the text in order to secure closer verbal
harmony in parallel passages or in order to secure more exact
statement. By these features of the Revision a larger meas-
ure of individuality and independence is accorded to each in-
spired reporter of Gospel facts and words than the exigencies
of a harmonistic rigor would allow." And again; ** Still
more important as aflfecting the doctrine of Inspiration is the
influence proceeding from the treatment of disputed passages,
notably the closing section of Mark, and the pericope of the
woman taken in adultery. . . The omission or the

segregating, or the bracketing as doubtful of passages so ex-
tended and conspicuous, can not fail to start queries respect-
ing the historical elements in the composition of New Testa-
ment books (particularly the Gospels) and the applicahUity of
currerU theories of inspiration. Assuming that the conclusions

150 THE DEBATE.

of criticism respecting these passages are probably correct,
the readers will be led to inquire : What was the measure of
their original inspiration ? If inspired before their incorpora-
tion in the text, what does the existence of such inspired
fragments suggest respecting the extent and immediate pur-
pose of inspiration? If uninspired at first, did they gain
anything by their adoption into the sacred record? If so,
what ? Is that gain the equivalent of an original inspiration ?
Is there an atmosphere of inspiration which suffuses all that
is brought into the record from without? Or must every
thing for which the claim of an original inspiration can not
be established be rejected intotof .How do the conclusions
of criticism, and the queries which they suggest, affect all a
priori and ipsissima verba theories of inspiration? ISuch ques-
tions are inevitable. It may be too early to forecast the final
replies to them. It is safe to assume, however, that any the-
ory of the subject which is not elastic enough to touch all the
facts in the case is liable to break."

I have quoted thus at length for two reasons. On the one
hand, it has been said by some of the most conservative that
Dr. Evans's affirmations in this article are among the best
and most satisfactory on the subject. But the quotations
given show that he did not make those affirmations as affirm-
ations of inerrancy. It is possible, therefore, for one to hold
a very high doctrine of inspiration without holding to iner-
rancy. This is one point. The other is the use of these
affirmative declarations by some men to insinuate that since
the writing of this article Dr. Evans had suffered a defection
from his former faith. The quotations given show that ten
years ago he was thoroughly convinced of the inadequacy of
all current theories of inspiration in View of the established
conclusions of criticism. In fact the questions he raises in
the above given paragraph are just the questions which the

THE DEBATE. 151

theory of a verbal or an inerrant inspiration finds itself una-
ble to answer. The position of Dr. Evans, therefore, was
consistent throughout. So convinced was he, moreover, that
his own position was thoroughly in accord with the Con-
fession, that when ecclesiastical process was suggested to him
as a possible result of the papers on Biblical Scholarship he
replied : " I can not think it."

The point of this whole contention is, that of late years, we
have learned some things from the critical study of the
Scriptures, some things with which we must reckon. It
seems to be useless to say that Presbyterians do not enter
upon the study of the Word with a prepossession against
miracle, or with a bias in favor of the doctrine of develop-
ment. Theirs is no determination to make the Scriptures fit
some previously adopted philosophy of history. I say it
seems to be useless to say this because it has been so often
said, and yet the party opposed to criticism persist in making
all critics responsible for the most radical conclusions of the
most radical school. The only principle which Presbyterian
critics have, is that we must recognize facts when they are
pointed out. And when we examine the reasonings of all
critics, we find some common facts that are too patent to be
denied. One class of these bears upon the authorship of
Scripture in such a way as to show that the problems before
us are much more complex than the theologians have hereto-
fore been willing to admit. Up to this time the idea of au-
thorship which has been taken for granted in the theory of in-
spiration is the modern idea of authorship. When one of
our theologians writes a book, he first gathers and elaborates
his material, and then casts it into a single mold, all of
which is his own, and bears the impress of his individuality.
So to his mind the authors of Scripture. Each wrote his
book as all his own. He was fitted to do it by inspiration,

152 THE DEBATE.

which gave him the impulse and furnished the material*
**The Apostles were to be the historians of our Lord's life.
Two out of the four Evangelical narratives are actually
written by their pens, and the other two are written by men,
themselves prophets and* taught \)y apostles ; the one being
the convert of Peter and his son in the faith, and the other
the companion and fellow-laborer of Paul." * We see the sim-
plicity of the hypothesis. These four men write their books
as other men might write, only under inspiration. But when
we examine the phenomena of the Synoptic Gospels, we find
many things irreconcilable with such an origin. The verbal
correspondences are such as to show previously existing writ-
ten sources, large parts of which have been taken up up-
changed into our present books. The theory of inspiration
does not take these facts into consideration. In the Old
Testament we find the same complication more marked.
** The authors of Hebrew historical books do not as a modern
historian would do, rewrite the matter in their own language ;
they excerpt from the sources at their disposal such passages
as are suitable to their purpose, and incorporate them in their
work, sometimes adding matter of their own, but often (as it
seems) introducing only such modifications of form as are nec-
essary for the purpose of fitting them together, or accommo-
dating them to their plan. The Hebrew historiographer as
we know him is essentially a compiler of pre-existing docu-
ments. He is not himself an original author." f This lan-
guage correctly states facts established by historical evidence,
evidence as strong as we can have for any thing of this
nature. And these facts are precisely the facts for which the
old theory does not account. That God should ** reveal"

* Bannerman on Inspiration, p. 391.

t Driver. Introduction to the Literature oLthe Old Testament^
p. 3.

THE DEBATE. 153

things which the writers already knew, seems superfluous.
That he revealed things already written down in other books
in just the words in which they were already contained in
those other books seems incredible. But this is the position
of such writers as Bannerman, to whom, as we have seen, the
whole Bible is a revelation.

I need not show in detail that this is the class of facts which
the two papers on Biblical Scholarship and Inspication were
intended to bring out. The object of bringing them out was
to show the complexity of the problem of inspiration^ and to
guard against a hasty condemnation of one who, in view of
this complexity, could not take the oath of allegiance to the
rigid dogma still held so 'largely in our Church. To say
that the papers succeeded in their purpose would be wide
of the mark. They seemed, for the time being, to have
made no impression whatever. Not only was there no one to
advocate the view of the papers. The three papers written
on the other side showed no adequate appreciation of the
problem as we had tried to present it.* The first of these
papers was entitled ** The Down Grade Theology." Its title
shows the position of its author, which will be made clearer
by one or two extracts :

" Cincinnati has suffered at different times from financial
panics, riots, pestilences and floods. Now she is called upon
to endure an avowal of sympathy with Briggsism by four of
our Lane Seminary professors. When we remember that
confidence in the Bible as the Word of God is one of the con-
servative influences keeping society in order, a valuable aid,
indeed, to the constabulary, we may find reason to conclude
that this last named calamity may not be the least in the
list. The Church was filled with' joy to know that Saul of

♦Three papers were written. Only two of them were read.
The other was printed in the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette.

154 THE DEBATE.

Tarsus, once a persecutor, was preaching the faith he had be-
fore sought to destroy. The Church mourns to-day because
some, whom she has delighted to honor, now seek to make
havoc of the faith they uudertook faithfully to preach."

** In his second paper Professor Evans gave us some al-
leged errors in the New Testament. . .* . All of them, I
believe, were presented by Strauss forty years ago, and all
have been .answered over and over again to the satisfaction of
the great mass of intelligent and reverent students of the
Scriptures. Weightier reasons' than these, they have said,
must be presented before the strictest statement of the doc-
trine of verbal inspiration must be given up. But upon our
Professor's faith they have had the most disastrous effect. He
is induced thereby not only to surrender the truth (^f plenary
inspiration but to propound to account for them a most deadly
theory concerning the origin and composition of the Gos-
pel narratives. It is the story over again of the destructive
critics concerning the books of the Pentateuch. Original
documents, gathered scraps, a reducing to present form by
some unknown redadeur — originally in the Aramaic, then
into the Greek — the idea of inspiration controlling in col-
lating, translating, re-writing, an absurdity: the Gospels a
complex result of a complex process. So the doleful stream
of eloquence ran on."

** What else follows ? This : That the able and scholarly
among the children of God must follow the example of the
little ones who believe Jesus and believe whatever he says,
whether they understand it or not. They must not think of
themselves more highly than they ought to think ; nor think
themselves exempt from the obligation to be poor in spirit.
The babes in Christ, when they meet with insoluble diffi-
culties, pray about them, if they be troubled, and then leave
them with their Lord without concern until He shall see fit

THE DEBATE. 155

to give them light. The critic, however prodigious he may
be, must do the same or go on into ever deepening darkness,"

These, which I think fair samples of the paper, show that
the author follows a train of reasoning something like this :
(1) To disbelieve the doctrine of verbal or plenary inspira-
tion is to assume an attitude hostile to Christianity; (2) This
doctrine is indubitably the doctrine of Christ himself; (3) Sup-
posed results of criticism such as the composite nature of the
Gospels, are contrary to this theory of inspiration and there-
fore must "be rejected as ** deadly ;" (4) The root evil is the
self-sufficiency or arrogance of the critics, who are not con-
tent to sit as little children at the feet of Jesus. Every
step in this train is an assumption except the third. In
regard to this, there is not the slightest indication that the
author conceived of the nature of historic evidence, or the
possibility of criticism establishing any facts whatever. The
fourth assertion was so ^wide of the mark, when applied to
Dr. Evans, as to be both painful and ludicrous. The com-
munity in which he moved has probably never known a more
truly childlike follower of the Master than was he. Modest
and unassuming to a fault, he was always ready to learn
from others. In his social life he was delightfully simple
and unaffected to all. His religious life was pervaded by
that faith of a little child given us as an example in the
Gospels. His intellectual life and its productions showed no
taint of the arrogance sometimes charged upon echolars as a
elass*. To attribujte the well considered opinions of such a
man to the pride of scholarship, to the tendency to think of
oneself more highly than one ought to think, was to commit
a grave breach of Christian courtesy, as well as to show cul-
pable ignorance of what Christian scholarship and Christian
character are.

The second reply with which we were honored purported

156 THE DEBATE.

only to correct one of Dr. Evans's statements — the one con-
cerning Paul's chronological datum in Gal. iii, 17. It treated
incidentally one of my own examples adduced to show bias
in the Chronicler. It is evident that these errors might be
accounted for by ingenious conjecture, and yet the main argu-
ment in both papers be left untouched. Harmonistic treat-
ment of single discrepancies does not touch the evidence con-
cerning the complex nature of many books in the Old
Testament and of some in the New, which evidence renders
the old theories of inspiration inadequate. A few quotations
from this paper may not be out of place.

** I have dealt thus far with two of the examples furnished
by my brethren in proof of the errancy of the Scriptures.
Concerning the other examples furnished by them, I have to
state that they are part of the shelf- worn stock in trade of
the rationalistic enemies of the Word of God, and that crit-
ical scholars, who are at least the equals of my colleagues,
and who understand all the questions at issue, do not hesitate
to part company with these brethren and to regard their po-
sitions and conclusions as unwarranted. Yesterday a lady
met me with tears in her eyes and asked me if the Lane
Seminary professors were about to take the Bible away from
her. I replied that she had no need for alarm, that the ob-
jections and difficulties raised by my colleagues in the ma-
jority of cases had been answered satisfactorily, and that
those which seemed insuperable were either the errors of copy-
ists or the results of an ignorance which God would remove
in due time. In the faith thus expressed I abide."

** The tide seems to be turning against the negative school.
One of the latest works in the Old Testament department is-
sued in Germany is * Zahn's Deuteronomy,' dedicated to the
* eminent American apologist. Dr. Wm. Henry Greene in
Princeton with sincere esteem.' This treatise is one of great

V

THE DEBATE. l57

ability, and resolutely maintains the traditional views of the
Mosaic authorship, historical accuracy and inspiration of Deu-
teronomy. (See the Presbyterian and Reformed Review,
April, 1891.) The writer recommends Germans to read Dr.
Green's works. I modestly advise Americans in Cincinnati
and elsewhere to do the same. Again, in England the pres-
ent trend of thought is unfavorable to the negative school. I
have seen the statement that recently Prof. Margoliouth,
Arabic Professor in Oxford University, has vindicated the in-
tegrity and authenticity of Daniel ; and has compelled the
acquiescence in his views of Profs. Driver and Cheyne, the
foremost champions in Great Britain of the negative criti-
cism. If this be true, then so far as that particular book is
concerned, Prof. Briggs's inaugural is already a back number.
To put this third point briefly: For fifty years the advocates
of negati6n have brought charge after charge against the
integrity of Biblical books and the accuracy of Biblical his-
tory, only to go down to defeat before the advance of knowl-
edge in ancient Oriental history and Biblical philology. The
past unites with the present in evidencing that the Bible is
an anvil which has worn out eveiy hammer lifted upon it."

The train of argument of this paper also may be summa-
rized : (1) Two out of the many examples of discrepancy in
Scripture may be harmonized by assuming errors in transmis-
sion ; (2) The examples of discrepancy in general are a
** part of the shelf- worn stock in trade of rationalistic ene-
mies of the Word' of God f (3) Some critical scholars who
are fully acquainted with the questions at issue do not draw
the ^conclusions set forth in the papers ; (4) The admission
of these conclusions destroys the Word of God ; (5) Some
of the difficulties and objections have been answered satisfac-
torily and the rest will be some time ; (6) The tide is turning
in England and Germany as the author " has seen it stated."

158 THE DEBATE.

It ts needless to point out that calling names (rcdiorudists and
^destructive critica) does not prove any thing, and that in our
Clmrch the authority of critical scholars on either side is not
conclusive. The assertion that many of our arguments have
been long ago refuted is true so far — that harmonistic efforts
have b§en repeatedly made. The trouble is that they have
to be made again, for the refutations do not seem permanently
to refute the arguments. The allusion to Zahn and Margo-
liouth as having turned the tide is calculated only to provoke
a smile in any who know the real impression made by these
men.

A third paper read before the Association was a review of
Dr. Briggs's Inaugural, and touched upon our positions only
incidentally. In regard to the doctrine of inspiration, the
author said: "If I must make either affirmation, I deliber-
ately prefer the position of inerrancy, however serious the
difficulties that confront me from the second quarter. But
have I a right to require that other Christian minds shall
take the same position at the peril of being counted disloyal
to Holy Writ if they refuse? On the other hand, have they
any right to enforce their presumption of errancy upon
me?" It is not necessary to point out that all the authors of
the papers on Biblical Scholarship ever asked was that both
views of inspiration might co-exist in the one Church. The
doctrine of the errancy of Scripture which is often spoken of
is not a formulated dogma of any school. It is only when
the theory of inerrancy is asserted to be the only ** sound," or
"orthodox," or ** Ccmfessional" doctrine, that it becomes nec-
essary in the interest of truth and sound learning to ehow
now irreconcilable with such a theory are the facts of Script-
ure. The judgment of this conservative authority on one
point alluded to above may be given here. It is to the effect
that inerrancy is not affirmed in the Westminster Confession.

THE DEBATE. 159

** It seems to be supposed by the advocates of the absolute
inerrancy of the. original Scriptures in every minute detail,
that their view is sustained in some way by the creed of our
Church. The plain fact is that there is not a single sentence
or phrase in our Confession (or, indeed In any Protestant
symbol) by which a man could be convicted of heresy who
should ^ffirm that in his judgment there were errors of this
class in some of the books of Scripture as originally written.
Our creed is much less specific on this point than is commonly
supposed — much less in fact than is the general belief of the
Church itself in our time. The doctrine of inspiration, as
most of us hold it, is an historic growth, subsequent to the
Westminster Assembly, and indeed chiefly in this century.
In condemning departures from that doctrine, it is well to
remember that we as Presbyterians can go no farther ecclesi-
astically than our own Confession warrants; later opinion,
however current, is not a constitutional basis for discipline."

With every desire to be fair to these papers, then, I can.
not discover that they appreciate the problem, much less do
they solve it. The alternative is with them either the old
view (in substance) or rationalism. The last one of the three
was grateful as showing that conservative New School men
did not believe in settling the questions by ecclesiastical pro-
cess. But even it protested against the critical views rather
than attempted to discuss the real problem they present.
The action of Presbytery was equally discouraging. The
overture was passed by a majority of fifty-four to seventeen.

160 ACTION PROPOSED.

CHAPTER VI.

ACTION PROPOSED.

As this is in some sense an apologia pro vita med, I shall not
apologize for the frequent use of the pronoun of the first per-
son. I will try, however, to confine myself to the main
question. The overtures to the Detroit Assembly were re-
ferred to the committee on theological seminaries, and on its
recommendation the election of Dr. Briggs was disapproved.
The Moderator of the Assembly was Professor William Henry
Green. The chairman of the committee was President Fran-
cis L. Patton. The vote was 449 to 60. The action was at
once interpreted as a condemnation of the view of inspiration
held by Dr. Evans and myself. It is, however, worth notic-
ing that the General Assembly can not decide the doctrine
of the Church except by judicial process. Besides this, the
Assembly, in disapproving the election of Dr. Briggs, was
ostentatiously careful to give no reasons. The fact that
charges were pending against Dr. Briggs in the Presbytery
of New York was sufficient reason why this reticence should
be observed. Even if the reasons in the mind of the Assem-
bly were doctrinal ones, there was no method of discovering
what they were. Several things had been objected to in Dr.
Briggs which Dr. Evans and I did not hold. We had said
npthing about the three fountains of divine authority, or
about progressive sanctification. 'These might be the deter-
mining factors in the mind of the Assembly, and in that case
we could not be involved, even constructively. The action
might be a judgment that Dr. Briggs was too sanguine in

ACTION PROPOSED. 161

temper, or too indefinite in the use of language to be a good
teacher; or it might be the expression of a vague prejudice
against him in the mind of the Assembly. All that it was,
in fact, was a disapproval without reasons. It was, however,
taken as an evidence of the mind of the Church on the sub-
ject of inerrancy. " It means that men Jwlding the views of
Dr. Briggs, and seminaries indorsing or employing such naen,
cut themselves off from the sympathy and patronage of the
Presbyterian Church" — such was the expression of one of
the Presbyterian organs, and it doubtless represents the gen-
eral conservative view.

Be it remembered that there is yet no authoritative decis-
ion that the ** views" of Dr. Briggs are contrary to the
Confession which is the Presbyterian standard of doctrine.
This fact makes the declaration just quoted mean in effect
this: *' A party in the Church holds Dr. Briggs and those
who agree with him to be unorthodox. Without waiting for
the judicial decision which alone can decide this point, we
disapprove his election as professor. Those who hold with
him, and who do not hold our doctrine of inspiration, we
would remove from their chairs if it were practicable. As
this is «iot practicable, we will withhold the patronage and
sympathy of the Church from the institutions wliich employ
them." A itoore barefaced demand of a single party to rule
the institutions of the Church under a threat to ruin them by
creating suspicion against them, was probably never made.

What private attempts were made to bring the Trustees of
Lane Seminary into line with this policy need not here be re-
hearsed. The influence of the Presbytery was brought to
bear upon them in action taken December 21, 1891, as fol-
lows:

** Whereas, The Presbytery of Cincinnati and many others
memorialized the late General Assembly to take some notice
11 /

162 ACTION PROPOSED.

of the peculiar views and teachings of the Rev. C. A. Briggs,
D.D., of Union Theological Seminary; and in view of the
Assembly's action and the continued agitation and discussion
thereupon, Presbytery deems it proper to take the following
action :

** 1. Besolved, That this Presbytery is in hearty sympathy
and accord with the action taken by the late General Assem-
bly in the case of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D. , in de-
clining to approve his appointment to the chair of Biblical
Theology in Union Theological Seminary, in New York.
And we also most cordially approve the action of the late As-
sembly in its reaffirmation of the deliverances of the Assem-
blies of 1882 and 1888, respectively, in which they solemnly
warn all who give instruction in our theological seminaries
against inculcating any views or adopting any methods which
may tend to unsettle faith in the divine origin and plenary in-
spiration of the Scriptures as held by our Church, and which
would preclude the teaching of the dangerous doctrine of
errancy in the original manuscripts of the Bible.

'*2. Resolved^ That a committee be appointed to have this
subject under consideration, and report at the next stated
meeting what further action, if any, should be taken by this
Presbytery."

This action upon the face of it only approved the action of
the General Assembly ; first, in disapproving the appointment
of Professor Briggs, and secondly, in passing certain resolu-
tions which the Presbytery construed as precluding **the
teaching of the dangerous doctrine of errancy in the original
manuscripts of the Bible." A committee of five, the mover
of the resolution (the Rev. R. H. Leonard, D.D.) being
chairman, was appointed '* to have this subject under consid-
eration." The natural interpretation of this language is to
the effect that the committee should consider especially Dr.

ACTION PROPOSED. 163

Briggs and report what further action was practicable in his
case. Furthermore, they were to consider the teaching of the
dangerous doctrine spoken of, and report what might be done
in regard to that. Exactly what the movers of the resolution
had in mind is difficult to make out. One would think the
committee were commissioned to discover first what the
dangerous doctrine of errancy is, and to what extent it was
taught in our seminaries. In the second place, they might be
supposed to draft some more ringing resolutions on the sub-
ject. Again, they might be expected to report some plan by
which the seminaries might be brought more distinctly under
the control of the presbyteries. But the resolution under which
the committee was appointed could not contemplate more than
this, unless, indeed, it was designed to secure a pledge from
particular professors as to what they would teach.

One thing seemed quite clear at the time the resolutions
were passed. They were not intended (unless in the minds
of very few) to initiate judicial process against, any one. I
pointed out at the time they were under discussion that they
vxyuld he construed as a reflection upon my orthodoxy, and that
the legitimate way to pronounce upon a minister's orthodoxy,
is to bring charges against him. The fact that these resolu-
tions did not propose an inquiry into the necessity of disci-
pline was the very point I urged against them. Their adop-
tion in the face of this protest only showed that the majority
were willing to pass such reflections on my soundness, withmit
judicial process. No one intimated that the ** Committee on
Erroneous Teaching " had power to consider the subject of
process. The chairman himself said that it was not a ques-
tion of ministerial standing. He said in substance that if
the suspected professors were occupying pulpits, they would
not be disturbed, but that it was time that presbytery should

164 ACTION PROPOSED.

take a stand against our continuance in our position as pro-
fessors.

Now if there is one thing carefully guarded by the consti-
tution of the Church it is the standing of the individual min-
ister. That standing can be impeached only by way of reg-
ular process. Presbytery is warned against receiving accusa-
tions against a minister on slight grounds. Judicatories are
instructed to ** take into consideration all the^ circumstances
which may give a different character to conduct." They
are not to commence process unless they find it ** necessary
for the ends of discipline to investigate the alleged offense,"
and they are told that in all cases ** effort should be made by
private conference with the accused, .to avoid, if possible, the
necessity of actual process." In view of these provisions of
the Book of Discipline, it is not too much to say that in case
discipline is contemplated, care should be taken to secure
these ends. The straightforward way is to bring the alleged
offense before Presbytery in a motion. This motion should
secure an impartial committee to investigate the alleged facts.
The committee should be empowered specifically to invite the
suspected person to a conference. It should, moreover, be
directed to consider the question whether it be necessary for
the ends of discipline to enter upon process. As already
pointed out, nothing of this was included in the motion on
errors in the Church. So far as I knew, nothing of this
was in the mind of the Presbytery in appointing the com-
mittee.

That the committee wished to get from me some pledge
concerning my teaching in the seminary (Dr. Evans had al-
ready announced his acceptance of an invitation to Wales),
I could ^very well believe. Some letters received about this
time looked in the same direction, though the writers did not

ACTION PROPOSED. 165

indicate that they spoke for the committee. One of them
wrote (in part) as follows :

** While I am in sympathy with the Detroit Assemhly, I
do not think that i't is true that you are teaching in Lane any
thing contrary to what even the most conservative Vould
[desire]. Moreover, since the view of our Church is so gen-
erally in sympathy with the conservative teachings, I do not
myself believe you would * unteach the teachings' expected by
our Church. In all frankness I do not regard your essay as
either timely or conciliatory, but that is of little importance.
' Forgetting the things which are behind.' My object in writ-
ing is to speak of the future, and to speak as one of your
best friends. Another attempt will probably be made either
by a committee or through the Trustees to get you to state
what you feel you must teach in Lane. Many of your friends
will favor this, prompted, as they claim, by love to Lane and
yourself. The intention is, if a favorable result is obtained,
to * boom Lane' in Presbytery. Now my point is this: Can
you not anticipate all this ? Can you not write an article for
one of our papers, in which, while not sacrificing your right
to investigate, you can remove any uncertainty in regard to
what you will teach your pupils?"

This letter is interesting as showing what the writer sup-
posed the Committee on Erroneous Teaching was appointed
to do. It was to get me to state what I would teach, or to
get the Trustses to state what I must (or must not) teach.
My reply to the letter was as follows :

" I have repeatedly pondered the contents of your letter
(received last week) with a desire to meet your frank and
friendly suggestions. I thank you for your expressions con-
cerning myself, and for writing as you did. . . . But
frankly I do not see my way clear to write such an article as
you suggest. While in fact I have been perhaps overscrupu-

166 ACTION PROPOSED.

lous in regard to teaching the higher criticism (out of regard
to the feelings of conservative ministers), I can not in princi-
ple limit myself beyond the lines already laid down by the
Church. In other words, I claim the liberty of teaching
whatever I believe, subject to these two limitations, viz.: (1)
If I teach any thing (in any place, seminary, or outside) con-
trary to the system of doctrine contained in the V/estminster
standards, I am subject to judicial process by the Presbytery.
(2) If I teach any thing contrary to sound doctrine in the .
judgment of our Board of Trustees, they have a right to call
me before them to give account. It seems to me the error is
on the side of those who, after having known me nearly
twenty years, refuse me their confidence on account of views
which are contrary to their interpretation of the Confession.
But there is another objection to any publication on my part.
Any such publication would be construed as a retraction — or
as disingenuous. It takes very little observation to discover
what misunderstandings are possible in an excited state of
party feeling like the present."

In my view, the effort of the writers of this and other let-
ters was to apply a private standard of doctrine to the teach-
ers in our seminaries. It can easily be seen how intolerable
the position of such a teacher would become, if wherever a
considerable party in Presbytery suspected 'him of dissent
from their views of doctrine, they could demand an explana-
tion of what he proposed to teach, under the threat of keep-
ing students from the seminary should he not give them sat-
isfaction. A similar letter to the above, received not long
after from another minister, puts the proposition clearly be-
fore us. After reciting the efforts of the writer to secure a
paper in Presbytery that would be acceptable to all, he adds :

** Since then I thought I would make another effort to save
trouble in Presbytery by getting up a petition to the Semi-

ACTION PROPOSED. 167

nary Board to take such action as it may deem wise to secure
the indorsemeot of Presbytery for the Seminary, which in-
dorsement can be secured on the assurance that the doctrine
of the errancy of the original manuscripts of Scripture shall
not be taught in it. We ask no change of professors. We
^sk nothing that would render a change necessary. Indeed
it is my desire, and so far as I know, the desire of all the breth-
ren, that there should be no change in the faculty except, of
course, the filling of Professor Evans' chair. We do not
know that you have ever taught this doctrine to your classes
and we do not think you wish to teach it. We want to re-
commend Lane to the Church at large * as an orthodox school
of the prophets,' and all that we ask is a basis on which to
do it."

The concession in the words, ** We do not know that you
have ever taught this doctrine to your classes," is deserving of
note. On the basis of a supposition that the offensive doc-
trine might be taught, but without evidence that it ever had
been taught, a pledge was asked. My reply here still seems
to me all that I could say in the circumstances :

**No apology was necessary for your letter of last week.
I have left it unanswered so long that I might consider its
contents carefully. I am not quite certain as to what you
would like to have me do. Of course I can not advise
the trustees unless they ask my advice.

** In regard to the paper submitted to . . . and shown
to me, my position is that Presbytery can not, by resolution,
settle the doctrine of the Church or the interpretation of the
standards. Am I not' right in this? You will understand
that it is with no disrespect to the majority that I feel I
must stand upon the liberty accorded by the Constitution
of the Church. You say the indorsement of Presbytery can
be secured for the Seminary on the assurance that the doc-

168 ACTION PROPOSED.

triue of the errancy of the original Scripture MSS shall not
be taught in it. I can truly say that I have never taught
such a doctrine, if by doctrine is meant a definite theory.
You know the expressions I have given were called out by as-
sertions or implications on the other side. When the Briggs
resolutions were introduced in Presbytery I saw (as I sup-
posed) that they were based on a theory of inerrancy which
can not be maintained in face of the facts. Before I give
assurance that I will not teach errancy, ought I not to have
assurance that I shall not be called upon by resolutions in
Presbytery to commit myself to what I can not assert? But
it is clear that a long discussion is upon us. Suppose now
my students have their attention called to this matter by the
discussion. Suppose one of them calls upon me in class to ex-
plain an apparent discrepancy. You wish the assurance that
in such a case I will tell him the discrepancy mtist have come
in by transmission. Unfortunately I have given enough at-
tention to text criticism to know that not all the discrepancies
can be accounted for in this way. You will see, I think, that
this is a case where the student has a right to know just what
I think, and where I can not bind myself to be silent."

Latterly a conservative organ has accused me of inconsist-
ency in declaring that I do not believe my doctrine of inspira-
tion contrary to the Confession while saying, as I say above,
that I have not taught any doctrine of ** errancy of the
original manuscripts " in my classes. It is worth while giv-
ing a word of explanation to this point just here. We
teachers of exegesis busy ourselves with the text of the
Scriptures as we find it. We have no need to teach any
doctrine of inspiration, for that belongs in the department of
Systematic Theology. Our effort is to lay before the student
the facts of the present text — in its best available form of
course. The existence of original manuscripts in which no

ACTION PROPOSED. 169

discrepancies or errors of statement were found, is a specu-
lative hypothesis. We have no interest in affirming or deny-
ing it. I have never had occasion in my classes to consider
it in any form. As a teacher of exegesis 1 want to get as
pure a text as is within our reach, to develop the truth affirmed
in that text, to remove (as far as possible) obscurities in the
language, to point out the authoritive teaching of the text —
in general to qualify the student to search the Scriptures for
himself. The only way in which I could come in contact
with errorless autographs is when they are held up by a dog-
matic affirmation. That dogmatic affirmation is nowhere
contained in our Confession. To insist upon it as a test of
orthodoxy is to go beyond the constitution of the Church.
Nevertheless, as it is a favorite speculation in the Church, I
have as a matter of expediency let it alone, so far as it lay in
the miud of my students. In fact, I believe myself to have
been too careful in regard to it. The position may not be
defensible ; I believe it to be at least excusable.

The Committee on Erroneous Teaching sent a communica-
tion to the Lane Seminary Board, in which it recited its ap-
pointment by the Presbytery. It declares that the Presbytery
understands the deliverances of the Detroit Assembly ** as
precluding the teaching of the doctrine of errancy in the
original manuscripts of the Bible." The members of the
cpmmittee were ** surprised and pained by the avowal on the
part of certain professors of sympathy with Dr. Briggs in the
views expressed in his inaugural." The Presbytery is de-
clared to " oppose vehemently some of the results of what is
popularly known as the Higher Criticism. It can not accept
them nor tolerate them, but must oppose them until they
are trampled under foot of all Christian men." The com-
munication is remarkable in that it makes no request or
suggestion. With it was a memorial reciting the action of

170 ACTION PROPOSED.

Presbytery, in December, and declaring the belief of the
memorialists that the Seminary can not receive the recom-
mendation of the Presbytery ** unless Presbytery is assured
that its teachings will be in accord with the deliverances of
the Assembly at Detroit." They therefore " memorialize " the
Board to take such action as they may deem wise in the
premises. What form such action might take is not sug-
gested. The Chairman of the Committee is reported to
have said that the Committee did not ask the removal of
any professor. It would seem, moreover, as if the Com-
mittee should have stated what results of the so-called
Higher Criticism Presbytery vehemently opposes, so that the
Board ijaight be able at least to inquire whether they were
taught in the Seminary.

At the meeting at which this communication wa^presented,
the Board, after calling attention to the Professors' subscrip-
tion to the Confession, declared : **That the Board is fully
assured that the obligations expressed in the * Formula of
Inauguration' are and will be faithfully recognized by the
members of the Faculty, and that nothing is now taught in
the Faculty or will be taught in the future that would tend to
impair the faith of the students in the Scriptures as the Word
of God, or to lessen their loyalty to the system of doctrine
and duty embodied in the standards of the Church." This
assurance would seem to be all that the Presbytery could
fairly require. It did not specifically assert that the teach-
ings of the Seminary should be in accord with the deliver-
ances of the Detroit Assembly. But it gave distinct utter-
ance to the conviction of the Board that that teaching was
in harmony with the faith of the Church. If it was the belief
of the petitioners that such was not the case, they had a
perfect right to bring evidence before the Board to that effect.
The fact that this assurance did not satisfy the dissatisfied

ACTION PROPOSED. 171

party shows either that they did not know what they wanted,
or that they did not have the courage to formul^^te their real
desires. What those desires were is probably indicated by
the paper recommended to the Board by its Executive Com-
mittee, and widely published, soon after the meeting just al-
luded to. This paper interprets the inauguration pledge ** as
precluding the teaching or publishing by them [the profess-
ors] of the doctrine of the errancy of the Holy Scriptures as
given by the Holy Ghost." It requires the jJledge to be
taken ex animo and every three years, or oftener if Required
by the Board, and ends by indorsing the compact of the As-
sembly with its seminaries, and pledging the Board to ad-
here to it. As no judicatory of the Church had yet decided
the ** doctrine of errancy " to be contrary to the Confession,
this was a recommendation to the Board to subject its profess-
ors to an extra confessional test, and this would make the
Seminary something else than Presbyterian. The Board
at its next meeting therefore declined to pass the resolutions
and reiterated its confidence in the genuineness of the pro-
fessors' subscription.

Before this, however, the Committee on Erroneous Teach-
ing had determined to report, recommencjing ecclesiastical
process. This came to me by hearsay. The only communi-
cation I received from the Committee was the following letter,
signed by the Chairman (dated April 2, 1892) :

•*M/ dear Dr, Smith — ^It has been suggested to me that the
Committee of Presbytery who have the subject of Bible in-
struction in the Theological Seminary under consideration
ought to have an interview with you on the matter. If you
desire to confer with the Committee, or to see any of them, one
or more, I am sure we will be most happy to arrange for such
a meeting."

As the Committee had already done all they could do

172 ACTION PROPOSED.

about teaching in the Seminary by their conference with the
Board of Trustees ; as they were not appointed to confer with
me ; as they were going beyond their powers if they were
considering my ministerial standing; as finally they only
asked if / desired to confer luith the Committee, it will not be
thought strange that I replied that I on my part had no de-
sire to meet with the Committee. The Committee came ta
the April meeting of Presbytery with a report, which, how-
ever, owing \o circumstances |)ersonal to myself, was post-
poned until a later date.

A SIDE ISSUE. 173

CHAFrER vn.

«

A SIDE ISSUE.

The difficulty of a historian is mainly chronological. Even
in a ** foot-note" like this, the stream of time has to be inter-
rupted in order to clearness in the narrative. The meeting
of Presbytery was held in April. In March, however, I had
unwittingly complicated the issue, and (as it appears) given
rise to new misunderstandings, by two articles contributed to
the New York Evangelist. The articles were written some
time before, and were in fact written without special refer-
ence to my own case. The. sharp* debate about Dr. Briggs,
Dr. Evans and myself, had developed a considerable degree
of irritation in the miods of some who took part in it. This
irritation sometimes showed itself in a demand that those not
in harmony with the Church should leave her bounds. In
some cases it had produced unkind reflections on the honesty
of those who, holding certain views, persisted in holding on
to their Church relations. On the other hand, I had reason
to know that some sensitive minds were rendered unhappy by
the assumed verdict on Dr. Briggs. Men who had followed
the Master's call into the Presbyterian ministry, and were
useful there, felt that they ought to go out if the ultra Pres-
byterians were right in their definition of Presbyterian doc-
trine. In these circumstances, I felt it would not be out of
place to show the broader side of our ordination obligations —
a side which had latterly been too much neglected.

174 A SIDE ISSUE.

•

Examples of the way in which supposed errorists are read
out of the Church may be found in the two papers prepared
for the Ministerial Association, and entitled the **Dowii
Grade Theology," and the ** Destructive Critics." The plain
intimation of thes6 papers is that those who hold any except
the **inerraht" view of inspiration do not belong in the
Presbyterian Church, or indeed in any Evangelical denomi-
nation. The weight of Dr. Shedd's great name was given to
an article entitled ** Denominational Honesty," which, as its
title indicates, emphasized strict subscription. The following
quotation may not be out of place:

**A part of the public press is conniving at denominational
dishonesty. It would permit Church officers to subscribe to a
creed and derive the benefit of subscription in the form of
reputation or emolument, while working against it. The
creed of a Church is a solemn contract between Church mem-
bers ; even more so than the platform of a political party is
between politicians. The immorality of violating a contract,
a portion of the press does not seem to perceive when a re-
ligious denomination is concerned ; but when a political party
is the body to be affected by the breach of a pledge, none are
sharper to see, and none are more vehement to denounce the
double dealing. Should a faction arise within the Republican
party, for example, and endeavor to alter the platform while
still retaining the offices and salaries which they had secured
by professing entire allegiance to the party, and promising to
adopt the fundamental principles upon which it was founded,
and by which it is distinguished from the Democratic and
other political parties, the charge of political dishonesty would
ring through the rank and file of Republicanism."

The wholly misleading character of the parallel here drawn
between a Church and a party, and the endeavor to justify

A SII?E ISSUE. '175

rigid Church discipline by the rule of the ** machine " in party-
politics seemed to me to show a strange misapprehension. On
this account I thought a discussion of what is really involved
in the Presbyterian minister's subscription to his creed a de-
sideratum. With the hope to start such a discussion, I wrote
ths two, papers in question. I supposed myself- to be calling
to mind principles admitted by every one. In order to de-
termine the force of a contract, the first thing is to examine
the language of the contract. As Dr. Charles Hodge had
long ago pointed out, the subscription to our creed as contain-
ing a certain *' system of doctrine," is not a subscription to
every proposition in the creed. As Dr. Hodge also pointed
out, it is necessary i6 examine the animus imponentis. These
two things I had especially in mind. The inquiry seemed to
me, and still seems to me, legitimate and timely.

None the less have I had occasion to regret the publication
of the articles. They were at once seized upon as an attempt
on my part to justify myself for remaining in the Church
after I had consciously departed from its system of doctrine.
That they were such an attempt js in no sense true, as I hope
I have made evident. They were made the occasion of throw-
ing doubt upon my subscription (soon after made) to the sem-
inary obligation. They gave impetus in fact to the move-
ment in Presbytery, and gave occasion to what was to me the
most painful of the charges brought afterward by the prose-
cution. They are here submitted to the judgment of the
reader with the request that he remember that they kre news-
paper articles, and that they profess to give only one side of
the question.

176 A SIDE ISSUE.

[From the New York Evangelist, March 17, 1892.]

HOW MUCH IS IMPLIED IN ORDINATION VOWS?

BY HENRY PRESERVED SMITH,

Professor in Lane Theological Seminary.

It is a good time to consider the question : How broad is
the Presbyterian Church ? The question concerns doctrinal
belief, and it yefers to officers of the Church. For it is clear
that our Standards are not intended for laymen and are not
applied to them. Any man who ** professes the religion of
Christ," can become a Church member.

The question then is : What latitude of belief is allowed to
officers of the Presbyterian Church? The answer must be
sought in what are called the vows taken at ordination. These
obligations are set forth in a series of questions to which affirma-
tive answers are required. It is worth noticing, however, that
these questions do not all require vows. And the only one
which is a vow concerning doctrine, is the one in which the
ministers promise ** to be zealous in maintaining the truths of
the Gospel and the purity and peace of the "Church." The
form of this vow is significant. The candidate does not
engage to be zealous in maintaining the doctrines of the Con-
fession or of the Westminster system, but to be zealous in
maintaining ihe truths of the Gospel, Clearly the interest of the
Church is a practical one. She specifies the great practical
truths which the minister must preach in order to save men.
Had the framers of the Form of Government intended our
ministers to be zealous in maintaining the distinctive doctrines
of Presbyterianism, they had sufficient command of language
to say so in plain terms. It is supposed by many strangers to
our polity, as well as some brought up within the Church, that
the Presbyterian Church is organized to propagate our dis-

A SIDE ISSUE. 177

tinctive doctrinal system. *1?he Church is compared to a politi-
cal party, and we are shown how quickly those leaders are
read out of the party who refuse to advocate party measures.
The inference is drawn that the Church has the same right and
the same intention to dismiss Us Mugwumps, and severe re-
flections are cast upon those who having [presumably] sworn
to advocate every statement of the Confession, prove unfaithful
to their **vows." But this comparison totally misconceives the
situation. The Presbyterian Church exists to bring men to
Christ, and the minister vows to preach the truths which will
under the blessing of God accomplish this result.

But while, properly speaking, the Church imposes no doc-
trinal vows beyond the one just stated, she does, no doubt, feel
it her duty to apply a doctrinal standard to her oflScers.. This
she does in the first two questions which are assented to by
ministers and elders alike. They are :

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa-
ments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith
and practice?

2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of
Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures ?

That these affirmations constitute a broad rather than a nar-
row basis of fellowship, will be evident from a few considera-
tions. The first requirement (which makes the Scriptures the
foundation of doctrine and morals) is the common principle of
Protestantism. It took shape in the conflict with the Soman
Catholic claim that the Church, i, e,, her tradition, is equally
authoritative with Scripture. Any one can make the aflirma-
tion of our Church who rejects the Eoman Catholic doctrine,
while recognizing that ** the Word of God which is contained
in the Scriptures ... is the only rule to direct us how we
may glorify and enjoy him."
12

178 A BIDE ISSUE.

The second question is equally the result of historic con-
flicts. Because Anabaptists and Socinians claim the Word of
God as their authority, it becomes necessary that we define
more nearly our understanding of that Word. Hence the Con-
fession. But as has frequently been pointed out of late, the
candidate accepts the Confession as containing a system of
doctrine. That he does not avow his belief in its every state-
ment is admitted on all hands. How to determine whether a
minister accepts the Confession as containing the system taught
in the Scriptures will be seen later.

Light is* thrown on the general question by the solemn
avowal of the Church itself that its acts are only ministerial
and declarative. This means that in examining a man for
ordination, the Presbytery is seeking to ascertain only whether,
in fact, he is called to the ministry by Christ. In ordination
the Presbytery acts only as the agent of its Lord, putting upon
record His decision. The examination and the questions asked
are only to throw light upon the mind of Christ. The logical
conclusion is that the Church has no right to shut out from
the ministry any whom Christ has called. The intention of
the Church can not then be to interpret rigidly the doctrinal
test it imposes. For notoriously, Presbyterians acknowledge
Congregational and Baptist and Methodist ministers as actually
called by Christ injto the sacred office. It is clear that tests
that exclude Arminians in doctrine and Independents in
polity, can be justified only as matters of expediency. In the
interests of harmony within the Church, it may not be deemed
wise to ordain men who differ so widely from our views. Yet
even in these cases one would think a Presbytery would
hesitate long before refusing ordination to those who show the
spirit of Christ.

But it is worth remarking further, that this doctrinal quali-

A SIDE ISSUE. 179

fication is required only at ordination. That men's views may
change after ordination was as true in the last century as it is
now. Had it been the intention of the Church to secure strict
doctrinal uniformity, it would have required frequent sub-
scription if not frequent examination. Not only is no pro-
vision made for this, but the candidate for ordination is
nowhere warned that if his doctrinal views should change, he
must acquaint his Presbytery with the fact. Even in the
present doctrinal alarm, but one man has proposed repeated
subscription, and even he limited his proposition* to professors
of theology. It is clearly the theory of the Church that a
minister once inducted into the sacred oflSce may be safely left
to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. By his success in the
ministry he acquires a right not to be disturbed, except in
cases of exceptional gravity, and even here the presumption
may be said to be in his favor.

To provide for cases that may arise, the decision as to
whether a minister accepts the Confession as containing the
system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures is left with the
Presbytery. But to guard the decision, it must be by way of
judicial process. This clearly lays the burden upon the prose-
cution, who must moreover prove the views held by the ac-
cused to be contrary to Scripture. The accused is allowed
every opportunity for defense. The judicatory is solemnly
charged as to the responsibility of deciding, and is warned to
consider whether the errors proven ** strike at the vitals of
religion.*' As if this were not enough, the Church has de-
clared that the most favorable construction should be placed
on ambiguous language, and that the accused should not be
held to the logical consequences of his aflSrmations.

Practically, the answer to our question is this : The Pres-
byterian Church is broad enough to retain in its offices any
man who has once sincerely received and adopted the Con-

180 A SIDE ISSUE.

fession as containing the system of doctrine taught in the
Scriptures, until by judicial process the courts of the Church
have deposed him from oflSce. In the best sense, ,this is not
High nor Low, but Broad.

[From the New YorJc Evangelist, April 7, 1892.]

THE SIN (Jf schism.

BY PROFESSOR HENRY PRESERVED SMITH.

»

Some people within and without the Presbyterian Church
seem to have been surprised and shocked that that Church
should be discovered to have any breadth or liberality. So
far, however, no one has been able to show that the fact is
otherwise, and it is much to be desired that those who think it
otherwise should give us a plain exposition of what the ordi-
nation ** vows" do imply. This is very much better than to
call my recent article arrant Jesuitry, or class the author with
embezzlers and forgers. Of course many are not pleased with
a liberal subscription, such as ours really is. These friends
realize the diflSculty of ecclesiastical trials. They themselves
would hesitate under the solemn charge of the moderator to
depose an earnest and useful minister on doctrinal grounds.
They therefore try to purge the denomination by indirection.
They make an ado over unfaithfulness to ordination vows, and
declare that any man not in harmony with the Presbyterian
Church (note the assumption), if an honest man, will volun-
tarily leave her communion and go ** where he belongs."

Now we all understand perfectly how pleasant it is to be in
a nice little company of congenial spirits. It is delightful to
live in a world where every one thinks as we think. But the
craving for such a world is a sort of selfishness after all. It is
at bottom the same principle which makes society exclusive,
and families and clubs. It is pleasant to associate with pleas-
ant people. But when this principle comes into the Church,

A SIDE ISSUE.

181

it is in the wrong place. We all acknowledge this whep the
individual Church is conducted on lines of social exclusive-
ness. It is much the same when the denomination is con-
ducted on lines of A^ctrinal exclusiveness. How often do we
hear mioisters characterize their fellows as sound in the faith,
meaning sound to a particular type of Presbyterian theology,
much as a lady describes another as "received in the best
society," from her own point of view, of course.

The mischief in drawing these lines is in the unhappiness it
causes in many useful and devoted servants of Christ. Loyal
to the truth of Scripture and of the Confession, efficient in the
service of the Church, the tender-hearted minister may yet be
of less robust dogmatic constitution than was Francis Turretin
(for example), and be conscious that he does not accept every
single assertion of the Confession. He fears l;e is out of place
and feels that perhaps he ought in deference to the feelings of
the majority to find another Church in which to labor. Yet
he loves the Presbyterian Church in which he was brought up
and which he has served hitherto with joy. He has no especial
leanings toward Congregationalism. He is hot an Arminian
or a shouter. He has no desire for the grace of orders. He
is not a Unitarian, but a Trinitarian. Where shall he go?
The logic of the situation as announced by those who declare
he ought to go, is that he ought to found a new denomination.

Now here we draw the line. There are denominations
enough. The Protestant world begins to realize that there
are too many, and to hope that by the grace of God they may
be reduced in number, if they are not \o disappear altogether.
But there need not have been half so many had there been in
the older denominations a comprehensive toleration toward
all their members. We believe, with the Eoman Catholics,
that schism is a sin, and beyond the Roman Catholics, we be-
lieve that the sin rests on the exscinding church. Luther

182 ^ A SIDE issue/

■would never have left the Church had he not been excommu-
nicated.

But if it is a sin for a Church to exscind its -members (ex-
cept for the gravest cause), it is also a sin ^r a member lightly
to leave a Church in which he is useful. His usefulness is
. prima fdde evidence that he is where God intends him to be.
But he thinks he is not in harmony with ** the views com-
monly received ampng us.** How does he know he is not?
Nothing is more diflScult to define than the views commonly
received. Besides, he is not required to conform to these
views, or to the views of the majority of the Assembly. How
absurd it would be to require a minister periodically to accept
the views of the majority of the General Assembly, or the sys-
tem of doctrine commonly held by Presbyterian ministers.

So much of this article was already in type before I saw Dr.
Ecob*s article in The Evangelist of March 31st. That article
leads me to review the ground. It is unnecessary to protest
that I would not intentionally ** offer a premium to intellectual
dishonesty.*'

We find ourselves confronted by a ** condition, not a the-
ory,** and probably many Church officers have had occasion
latterly to inquire what obligations they have actually taken
upon themselves. My contention is simply that a contract is
to be interpreted according to the fair and natural meaning of
the language. When one has avowed his belief in the Scrip-
tures as an infallible rule and is accused of inconsistency be-
cause he does not accept their every statement as inerrant, he
has a right to say the two things do not necessarily go together.
The subscriber can not be held to more than the language he
has used fairly means.

So far I suppose every one will agree with me. But one
thing more must be said : language does not mean the same
thing to-day that it did two hundred years ago. It may be

A SIDE ISSUE. 183

true that the Chqrch of the seventeenth century believed the
doctrine of the Confession to be in every point identical with
that of the Scriptures, and tried to have its officers affirm this
at ordination though I doubt both propositions. Nevertheless,
the Church of to-day does not read this identity of doctrine in
the formula of ordination ; is not this admitted on all hands?
What else does the Revision movement mean ? The Church
of to-day still requires assent to the proposition that the Stand-
ards contain the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, yet
it does not understand the words in the strict sense I have
described above. Now, when I am asked to assent to these
words, I ask myself again. What do they fairly mean ? Verbal
legerdemain and logical contortion are as distasteful to me as
to any one. But when I ask myself in all seriousness this ques-
tion, it seems to me quite clear that the words, as construed by
the Church to-day, allow a considerable difference of doctrinal
opinion. My only desire is to understand the construction
now put upon them by the Church.

We must draw the line somewhere, as the man said who
refused to invite his father and mother to his wedding. My
contention is that in this difficult and delicate matter the
Church has herself undertaken to draw the line, and that she
has undertaken to draw it by judicial process. " An offence is
any thing in the doctrine ... of a church riiember, officer, or
judicatory, which is contrary to the Word of God" — this is the
way the line is drawn. And where an alleged error is not
treated by the Church as an offense (either in that process is
not instituted or in that conviction does not result), then the
Church broadens her interpretation of the "system of doc-
trine." Not long ago I was told sharply that the Church
refuses to answer questions in thesi. How, then, we can know
what is included in the system of doctrine, except by judicial
process, does not appear.

184 CHARGES BSOUGHT.

CHAPTER Vni.

«

CHARGES BROUGHT.

The Committee on Erroneous Teaching had no doubts as
to its own mission. The purpose in the minds of the mem-
hers was probably strengthened by the action of the General
Assembly (May, 1892), at Portland, Oregon. This Assem-
bly sustained the appeal of the Prosecuting Committee of
the Presbytery of New York from the action of that body
in dismissing the case against Dr. Briggs, and the Presbytery
was ordered to permit amendment of the charges, ** so that
the case may be brought to issue and tried on the merits
thereof, as speedily as may be practicable." The Assembly
also adopted the following deliverance :

"The General Assembly would remind all under its care
that it is A fundamental doctrine that the Old and New Testa-
ments are the inspired and infallible Word of God. Our
Church holds that the inspired Word as it came from God is
without error. The assertion of the contrary can not but
shake the confidence of the people in the sacred books. All
who enter office in our Church solemnly profess to receive
them as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. If
they change their belief on this point. Christian honor de-
mands that they should withdraw from our ministry. They
have no right to use the pulpit or the chair of the professor
for the dissemination of their errors until they are dealt with
by the slow process of discipline. But if any do so act, their
Presbyteries should speedily interpose, and deal with them
for violation of ordination vows. The vow taken at the

CHABGES BROUGHT. 185

beginning is obligatory until the party taking it is honorably
and properly released. The General Assembly enjoins upon
all ministers, elders and Presbyteries, to be faithful to the
duty here imposed."

The **duty here imposed" is evidently the duty of disci-
plining those who are unfaithful to their ordination vows in
using the pulpit or the professor's* chair for the dissemination
of their errors. Inasmuch as there has never been any proof
offered that I have used either the pulpit or the professor's
chair for the dissemination of any errors whatever, the warn-
ing of the Assembly could not rightfully be applied to me.
The particular doctrine on which the Assembly supposed
some to have changed their belief, is the doctrine that the
Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
Here, too, I must consider myself untouched by the charge.
The fundamental and unique character of the Scriptures as
a rule of faith and practice, I have repeatedly affirmed dur-
ing this debate. If, now the Assembly meant to amend the
Confession of the Church by its affirmation that our Church
holds that the ** inspired Word, as it came from God, is with-
out error," then the Assembly transcended its power. The
affirmation is itself ambiguous. If it means to assert the
inerrancy of the original autographs, it should say the in-
spired Word was without error. If it means to assert that
our present texts are inerrant, it goes against the consensus
of scholars and the common sense of Christendom. As a
historical statement, it can bring no evidence for its support.
Such a resolution can not legitimately be taken as defining
the doctrine of the Church, and, as we have seen, its exhorta-
tion to Presbyteries to be faithful has no reference to my
case.

But, as I have said, the Committee seem to have been, if
any thing, strengthened in their purpose by this action. In

186 CHARGES BROUGHT.

fact, they cite it at length in their report. This report, pre-
sented in June, was acted upon in September. It begins by
enlarging its own commission. As we have seen, the Com-
mittee was appointed to consider the subject of the disap-
proval of Dr. Briggs, and the action of former Assemblies
" which would preclude the teaching of the dangerous doc-
trine of errancy." The Committee now call themselves a com-
mittee " to take under consideration and investigation the
matter of erroneous views and teachings mthin our bounds re-
garding the Scriptures and the standards of the Church." The
ground has been wholly shifted. The Committee as originally
appointed was to consider erroneous teaching in our theologi-
cal seminaries. One would think they would take pains to
present some evidence on the existence of such teaching.
But the whole of the first part of their report entirely ignores
this question and devotes itself to views and teachings out-
side the seminary altogether. With the second part of the
report, which severely attacked the Trustees of the Seminary,
we are not here concerned. One assertion in it may be no-
ticed : "In the meantime, your Committee endeavored in va-
rious ways, and especially by a courteous written proposition
sent by its Chairman to Professor Smith, to secure a personal
conference with him, luith a view to a satisfactory adjustment of
existing difficulties, which Dr. Smith declined." As the let-
ter of the Chairman has been given in full in Chapter VI,
the reader can judge how nearly it answers this description.
In regard to myself, the Committee call attention to the ad-
dress on Biblical Scholarship, to my speech in the Detroit As-
sembly, and my two Evangelist articles. They affirm that
they *' have endeavored to obtain from Prof. Smith some ex-
pression concerning his purpose, and have no reason to believe
that he intends to withdraw the statement made by him and
published in said pamphlet." As no one ever pointed out any

CHARGES BROUGHT. 187

statement that I was desired to withdraw or asked any expres-
sion concerning my purpose in any way, it is difficult to make
out what the Committee mean. They further say: *'Prof.
Smith seems to teach the doctrine that an officer in the Pres-
byterian Church who has once received and adopted the Con-
fession, no matter vjhat dianges of opinion may have taken place,
may properly continue in his position until by judicial process
the courts of the Church have deposed hiifa from office. But
your Committee earnestly seeking to avoid such judicial issue,
made an effort to secure such action on the part of the Trustees
of Lane Seminary as might remove the urgency for such
measures on the part of Presbytery. In this, however, we
failed. Instead of such action, the Board not only continued
lim in the chair of Hebrew, but added thereto New Testa-
ment Literature and Greek Exegesis."

The Committee insert the clause ** no matter what changes
of ©pinion may have taken place," without warrant from my
article. It then finds fault with my doctrine that an officer
may remain in his office (as minister, for example) in certain
circumstances. It then recites its effort to secure '* such action
on the part of the Lane Seminary Board as might remove the
urgency" for judicial process. But the Committee knew that
the Seminary Board have no power over my office as minister.
Besides, they had nowhere asked that I be relieved from office
even as an instructor. Now they complain that the Board not
only continued me in the Chair of Hebrew, but added thereto
(a part of) the Greek. The impression made by this part of
the report is like that made by the interview with the Board ;
either the Committee did not clearly know what they wanted,
or else they did not unambiguously ask it of the Board.
When they imply that action of the Board would have re-
moved the necessity for judicial process, they show that their
object was not to suspend or depose me from the ministry, but

188 CHARGES BROUGHT.

to remove me from my professorship. In order to do this
they were willing to suspend me from the ministry, in which
I need not otherwise have been disturbed. The conclusion of
the report is in the following language :

** We yield to none in our ardent desire for peace, but
peace is sometimes too dearly bought. War is upon us, but
not by our own act. As in the days of April, 1861, our
brethren have fired upon our Fort Sumter; and their cry,
like that of the seceding states, is * let us alone.' If it were
only secession we should be happy to let them alone. But
remaining with us and insisting upon their right to revolu-
tionize and dominate our Church we have no alternative but
to surrender or to fight the good fight for the faith once for all
delivered to the saints. The line of battle extends from New
York City to San Francisco. And in the great metropolis^
in Albany and in Cleveland as well as in Cincinnati, we hear
the reverberations of the assaults (so Dr. Briggs declares) of
hosts of victorious critics upon the detested bulwarks of
traditionalism. Our Lord declared that he came not to send
peace, but a sword. The great peacemaker himself must
wage unceasing war with all that is evil either in conduct or
belief until the cause of righteousness and truth shall tri-
umph."

This eloquent peroration shows the far from judicial frame
of mind of the Committee which had been conducting a ju-
dicial inquiry. It sets forth the state of passion into which
the Committee had worked itself. It is difficult to see how^
the paper on Biblical Scholarship could be construed as "fir-
ing upon Sumter." That in claiming my right to remain
in the Church (until I should be conscious of having departed
from her doctrines), I was insisting upon my right to domi-
nate and revolutionize the Church would not occur to anyone
not blinded by prejudice. My sober argument against iner-

CHAB6£S BROUGHT. 189

rancy was never intended as a demand to any one to surrender
any clierisbed belief, not to speak of the fact that it was pre-
pared by invitation of the Ministerial Association. I at
least had never pictured the assault of victorious critics upoq
the bulwarks of traditionalism. One would think the Com-
f raittee had no conception of the possibility of brethren hold-
ing different views of the same doctrine dwelling together in
the same Church. Their only view of doctrinal differences
is that the doctrine of one party must be evil, aud therefore
that it mu^t be exterminated by judicial process.

The recommendation of the Committee was that a Com-
mittee of Prosecution should be appointed to formulate
charges aud report the same to a meeting to be held Octo-
ber 17, 1892. The recommendation was adopted, and the
Commrttee appointed, consisting of the Rev. Dr. Wm. McKib-
bin, the Rev. T. O. Lowe, and D. H. Shields, Esq. At the
meeting named the Comqiittee read the Charges and Specifi-
cations, and put them into my hands with four weeks in which
to prepare my answer. The Charges and Specifications are
as follows:

CHARGE I.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., a minister
in said Church, and a member of the Presbytery of Cincin-
nati, with teaching (in two articles in the New York Evan-
gelist, dated respectively March 10, 1892, and April 7, 1892)
** contrary to the regulations and practice of the Church
founded " on the Holy Scriptures, and set forth in the Con-
stitution of said Church, that a minister in said Church may
abandon the essential features of the system of doctrine held
by said Church, and which he received and adopted at his

190 CHARGES BROUGHT.

ordination, and rightfully retain his position as a minister in
said Church.

Specification 1.

, He teaches erroneously in the New York Evangelist, March
10, 1892, that a doctrinal qualification is only required in the
officers of the Church at the time of ordination.

Specification 2.

He teaches erroneously in the New York Evangelist, March
10, 1892, and April 7, 1892, that whether in any individual
case the Church requires continued adherence to the doc-
trinal standard received and adopted at ordination, is only to
be made known by judicial process.

CHARGE n.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., being a min-
ister in said Church and a member of the Presbytery of Cin-
cinnati, with teaching, in a pamphlet entitled ** Biblical Schol-
arship and Inspiration," contrary to a fundamental doctrine
of the Word of Qod and the Confession of Faith, that the
Holy Spirit did not so control the inspired writers in their
composition of the Holy Scriptures as to make their utter-
ances absolutely truthful; t. e., free from error when inter-
' preted in their natural and intended sense.

Specification 1.

He teaches that the inspired author of Chronicles has been
guilty of asserting sundry errors of historic fact.

Specification 2.
He teaches that the inspired author of Chronicles has been

CHARGES BROUGHT. 191

guilty of suppressing sundry historic truths, owing to inabil-
ity or unwillingness to believe them.

Specification 3.

He teaches that the inspired author of Chronicles incor-
porated into his narrative and indorsed by his authority
meterial drawn from unreliable sources.

Specification 4.

He teaches that the historical unreliability of the in-
spired author of Chronicles was so great, that the truth of
history therein contained can only be discovered by such in-
vestigation, discrimination and sifting as is necessary to the
discovery of the truth in histories by uninspired and fallible
men.

Specification 5.

He teaches the historic unreliability of the inspired au-
thor of Chronicles to have been such that '*the truth of
events " can not be ascertained from what he actually as-
serts, but from what he unwittingly reveals.

Specification 6.

He teaches that the historical unreliability of the inspired
author of Chronicles extended to other inspired historic
writers of the Old Testament.

Specification 7.

He teaches that the historic unreliability charged by him
upon the inspired historical writers of the Old Testament is
chargeable, though in a less degree, upon the inspired writers
of the New Testament.

192 charges brought.

Specification 8.

He teaches that the disclosures of religious experience
gi\;eu by the inspired authors of the Psalms are not in accord
with the mind of the Holy Spirit, and free from moral defect,
but are simply the experiences of imperfect and fallible,
though pious men.

Specification 9.

He teaches that the assertions made by the inspired authors
of the Psalms are not to be relied upon as absolutely true.'

Specification 10.

He teaches that the last twenty-seven chapters of the Book
of Isaiah are not correctly ascribed to him.

Specification 11.

He specifically affirms the impossibility of the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures being free from all error, whether of doc-
trine, fact or precept.

CHARGE HI.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., a minister
in said Church, a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in
a pamphlet entitled ** Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration,"
while alleging that the Holy Scriptures are inspired, and an
infallible rule of faith and practice, with denying in fact
their inspiration in the sense in which inspiration is at-
tributed to the Holy Scriptures, by the Holy Scriptures them-
selves and by the Confession of Faith.

charges brought. 193

Specification 1.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is

consistent with the unprofitableness of portions of the sacred

writings.

Specification 2.

He teaches that the inspkration of the Holy Scriptures is
consistent with error of fact in their affirmations.

Specification 3.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures ,is

consistent with such unre^ability in their utterances that the

truth of events can not be ascertained from their utterances

themselves.

Specification 4.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is
consistent with a bias in the inspired writers, rendering them
incapable of recording the truth of events because incapable
of believing it.

At the meeting, November 14th, I first objected to three
members of Presbytery sitting in judgment on the case, be-
cause they had given public utterance to their judgment on
the merits of the case. One of them had used the following,
language :

*' We of the majority believe that the views promulgated
by Prof. Smith are wfdely at variance with the standards of
the Church. We believe the utterance of them to be a viola-
tion of his subscription to the standards of our Church. We
believe it is clearly contrary to the constitution -of the Church
for any minister to preach or any professor to teach such
doctrines."

13

194 GHABGES BROUGHT.

Another had written as follows :

''Is it right or honorable that any one who has taken a
solemn vow to maintain and teach the doctrines of the Pres-
byterian Church should continue to hold a high office of trust
in that Church, not only as a preacher but as a theological
professor, when he has abandoned the faith of the Church as de-
fined clearly by the highest court of the Church, and is teach-
ing either in the professor's chair or out of it doctrines which,
according to the decisions of the supreme court of the Church,
are contrary to its very constitution and subversive of its
fundamental law?"

The third had sent a communication to one of the news-
papers stating that I had ''steadily invited judicial process
and forced the Presbytery to institute it." All three of these
gentlemen, after stating that they would be able to render
an impartial verdict on the argument and evidence, were al-
lowed to sit in the trial. It may be interesting to note that
all three voted to sustain every charge and also to impoee the
penalty of suspension.

•«..-.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 195

CHAPTER rX.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

Mr. Moderator: — In compliance with your citation, I ap-
pear to respond to the charges and specifications drawn up by
your committee. The Book of Discipline (§ 22) allows me
at this time to **file objections to the regularity of your or-
ganization, or to the jurisdiction of the judiciary, or to the
sufficiency of the charges in form or in legal effect, or any
other substantial objection affecting the order or regularity of
the proceeding." I know of no objection to the regularity of
your organization, and I have always recognized the jurisdic-
tion of this Presbytery as the body to which I have promised
subjection according to my ordination engagements. I have
objections, however, to the regularity of its proceedings, as I
made known at the meeting in September. These objections
lie against the action of Presbytery in appointing a committee
of prosecution, and are as follows :

1. I object to the regularity of this action, in that it was
taken in pursuance of the report of a committee called the
" Committee on Erroneous Teaching." This committee was
appointed to take into consideration the subject of alleged er-
roneous teaching in theological seminaries, and had no au-
thority to consider the ministerial standing of individual

I
I

196 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

members of Presbytery. If this committee were appointed to
consider the subject of judicial process, this subject should
have been distinctly specified in the act creating the com-
mittee.

2. I object further to the regularity of this action, that the
Committee on Erroneous Teaching, on whose report the ac-
tion was taken, was a prejudiced and partisan committee, ap-
pointed to represent one opinion and one only. This -was
avowed in open Presbytery by the Moderator who appointed
the committee, and it is further evident from the form of the
report itself. Additional evidence of prejudice is found in
the fact that this report was given to the public prints be-
fore it was even read in Presbytery — thus circulating grave
accusations against me at a time when the committee knew
I could not be present to reply.

3. I object further to the regularity of this action, that it
was taken without the distinct inquiry on the part of Presby-
tery, whether it be necessary for the ends of discipline to in-
vestigate the alleged offense. This is contrary to the Book
of Discipline (§6).

4. The Book of Discipline further declares that " effort
should be made by private conference with the accused to
avoid, if possible, the necessity of actual process (§ 9)." I
object to the regularity of the proceeding of Presbytery, that
no such effort has been made. The representation on the part
of the Committee on Erroneous Teaching that they had made
such an effort was a misrepresentation, as the terms of their
own letter show.

I respectfully repeat these objections here because I think
them sufficient to vitiate the regularity of the proceeding.
They have virtually been overruled by the action of Presby-
tery in appointing a committee of prosecution. I file them
here, that they may be made a part of the record of the case.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 197

Before considering the charges let me remind you again,
in the words of the Moderator, that we are engaged in ju-
dicial business, and that you are to be mindful of your high
office as judges in a court of Jesus Christ. As judges it is
necessary, first of all, that you dismiss all prejudgment. In a
civil court pains are taken to rule out from judicial functions,
whether exercised on the bench or in the jury-box, all those
who have previously expressed or even formed an opinion on
the case. The accused has the right of challenge, and freely
exercises it, and where he has reason to suspect a prejudice in
the community at large that will endanger the fairness of his
trial he has a right to apply for change of venue, so that the
cause may be removed to a community which has not yet
formed an opinion. The reason that we have no such pro-
vision in ecclesiastical courts is probably the impression that
Christian ministers and officers of the Church can be trusted
to rise above prejudice and render in every case a verdict
according to the law and to the evidence. Occasionally,
however, the best founded expectations are disappointed, and
those familiar with the recent history of our Church must
realize that just now we are in the midst of mfluences un-
friendly to calm and unbiased consideration of doctrinal is-
sues. The very fact that we are revising our Confession of
Faith seems to make some minds more sensitive than usual
to doctrinal differences. The long discussion of the case of
Dr. Briggs has not always been free from party feeling,
and the complexity of the issues involved has certainly not
made it easier to discuss dispassionately any related ques-
tion. I might easily show by quotations that the minds of
some of the jurors on this case are already made up. Reso-
lutions virtually pronouncing upon me have been passed by
the Presbytery- The weekly paper most influential in Pres-
byterian circles in this region has declared unmistakably the

198 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

opinion of its editors and others unfavorable to my cause.
It has even insinuated recently that those who think as I do
are guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost.* The Com-
mittee on Erroneous Teaching has published its virtual con-
demnation of me without rebuke. And the Chairman of the
Committee of Prosecution has since his appointment accused
the higher critics (of whom he supposes me to be one) of
holding grave errors concerning the person of our Lord
Jesus Christ. And this was done not simply by way of de-
bate in a public assembly, but also in at least two Presby-
terian newspapers which circulate in this region. Even the
Synod of Ohio, before which this case may come by appeal,
has gone out of its way to commend the zeal of this Presby-
tery for entering upon judicial process against one of its
members. This state of things is without parallel in civil
process. Did it exist there it would be met by the devices
and safeguards I have already mentioned. We have no such
safeguards in ecclesiastical courts. There is all the more
reason why you, the judges and jurors here, should use your
most strenuous endeavors to rise above prejudice and dismiss
opinions already formed.

For I do not mention these things as bringing a railing ac-
cusation. I do not suppose that any one here would set about
poisoning your minds by newspaper articles and alarmist
speeches against heresy. I mention these things as showing
the state of a certain section of the public mind and as
emphasizing the diflBculties in the way of impartial consider-
ation of this case. For after months of discussion and in-
vective the issue has been brought down to something definite.
Your able committee have put on paper the particular things
which they suppose can be established against me. These

♦ Herald and Presbyter, Oct 12, 1892.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 199

particular charges are now the object of discussion. It is no
longer a question whether you agree with me or whether my
views are distasteful to you. Many things may make views
distasteful which yet have a right within the Church. The
question before you is not whether I am wrong in something
else than what the committee has charged, or whether my
views are dangerous in their tendency — a thing so easy to as-
• sert and so difficult to prove. ' The question is not whether I
have a logical mind, or have theological attainments, or even
whether I am fit to teach the Hebrew alphabet. The s6le
question now before us is the sufficiency of the charges and
specifications presented by your committee. Except this,
every thing bearing on the case or supposed to bear on it should
be resolutely shut out of your minds.

Now, if you fix your minds on the direct issue here raised,
you will see that it divides itself into two parts. The charges
of the committee allege certain facts ; they allege further
that these facts constitute an offense against the Presbyterian
Church Whether the alleged facts are true, is a question of
evidence to be proved in the trial itself. Whether even if they
be as alleged, they constitute an offense, is a question not of
testimony, but of law. In other words, an indictment must
be sufficient in law before it can be pleaded to and tried upon
the evidence. It is upon the question whether the charges
are sufficient in law that I now propose to spe^k. And the
General Assembly has given us some suggestions to guide us.
It has ruled first that the charges must be definite, t. 6., not
vague or ambiguous.

"All charges for heresy should be as definite as possible. The
article or articles of faith impugned should be specified, and the
words supposed to be heretical shown to be in repugnance to
these articles." Digest, p. 616.

200 , BE8PON8E TO THE CHARGES.

Again, the charge, to be sufficient in legal effect, must
charge a real offense, that is, something against which a stat-
ute can be shown to be in force. Wearing a yellow garment
is said to be a penal offense in China, and the charge of wear-.
ing a yellow garment would in that country subject the wearer
to a severe penalty if proved in fact. In this country the
fact, no matter how fully proved by testimony, will not, if
charged in the indictment, sectire conviction, simply because
the indictment can not point to a statute making the wearing
of' such a garment a crime or misdemeanor. Once more, the
charges and specifications must not only be definite and al*
lege a real offense. They must further be based not on some
one's dediLctions from language of the accused. Hear the Gen-
eral Assembly:

" Here it will be important to remark that a man can not fairly
be convicted of heresy for using expressions which may be so in-
terpreted as to involve heretical doctrines, if they may also admit
a more favorable construction ; because no one can tell in what
sense an ambiguous expression is used, but the speaker or writer,
and he has a right to explain himself; and in such cases candor
requires that a court should favor the accused, by putting on
his words the more favorable rather than the less favorable
construction.

Another principle is that no man can rightly be convicted of
heresy by inference or implication, that is, Ave must not charge an
accused person w^ith holding those consequences which may legit-
imately flow from his assertions. Many men are grossly incon-
sistent with themselves ; and while it is right in argument to over-
throw false opinions by tracing them in their connections and con-
sequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion which
he disavows." Digest, p. 224.

One thing more : the specifications must be relevant to the
charge. The specifications ** set forth the facts relied upon

RESPONSE TO THE CHABOES. 201

to sustain the charge." If it is clear that they do not sustain
the charge actually made, they must be ruled out before the
trial can proceed. For example : if a person be charged with
absenting himself from the communion, and the specifications
recite only cases of absence from the Sabbath service on other
than communion days, the charge must be dismissed, how-
ever true the facts alleged may be. For the specifications
would not sustain that charge, however clearly they might es-
tablish another charge, as of sinful negligence of the preach-
ing of the Word. And it should be borne in mind that if all
the specifications under a given charge are shown to be irrele-
ant or otherwise insufficient, the charge can not be sustained.
For the issue raised here is the particular issue as to these
charges and specifications.

I have been careful to define these points because I fear
unless they be clearly before us we may consume time and
confuse the issue by not doing at this time what this particu-
lar stage of proceedings requires. What this particular stage
of proceedings requires is an inquiry into the definiteness,
the legality, and the relevancy of the charges and specifica-
tions. I will take up first Charge I, and then for reasons
which will appear, Charge III, and finally Charge II.

C&ARGE I.

The Presb3rterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., a minister in said
Church, and a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, with
teaching (in two articles in the New York Evangelist, dated re-
spectively March 10, 1892, and April 7, 1892) " contrary to the
regulations and practice of the Church founded" on the Holy
Scriptures, and set forth in the Constitution of said Church, that
a minister in said Church mav abandon the essential features of
the system of doctrine held by said Church, and which he re-

202 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

ceived and adopted at his ordination, and rightfully xetain his
position as a minister in said Church.

1. I object to this charge that it is insufficient in form in
that it is not definite and specific. It states no article or ar-
ticles of faith that have been impugned. The committee
mention, indeed, ** the regulations and practice of the
Church." But it can not be all the regulations or the whole
practice of the Church that I have impugned. It is clear
that the charge is one of heresy, because false teaching is al-
leged. !3ut false teaching must be against doctrines distinctly
taught in the Confession of Faith. If the charge is to stand
it should at least be made specific.

2. But a second objection against this charge is equally valid.
The charge is insufficient in legal efiect in that it alleges as an
offense something which is not contrary to the doctrine of the
Church. The charge is of teaching that a minister " may
abandon the essential features of the system of doctrine held
by said Church, and which he received and adopted at his
ordination, and rightfully retain his position as a minister of
said Church." It is implied here, though not distinctly as-
serted, that it is' a doctrine of our Church that a minister
may not so abandon essential features of doctrine and right-
fully remain a minister. But this is not a question of doc-
trine at all. It is a question of history. What, actually ,
does the Church require in subscription to its creed ? It is
conceivable that subscription to a creed may vary from the
most rigid acceptance of every article to an acceptance which
is merely nominal. Does this committee propose to discipline
for inquiry into the actual practice of the Church ? If so,
they should be prepared to formulate this charge in these
words : ** We charge the accused with heresy in that he in-
quired into the history of creed subscription in the Presby-

RESPONSE TO THE CHABGES. 203

terian Church." The absurdity of such a charge is evident on
the face of it. And it is further evident if the citations
from the Book of Discipline and the Form of Government
are examined. For these establish no more than that the
Church has the r^ht of discipline, and that it has adopted
the standards. Neither of these is contradicted by what I
am alleged to have taught.

3. I object to this charge as insufficient in legal effect in that
the specifications do not sustain the charge. The specifica-
tions are :

Specification I.

He teaches erroneously in the New York Evangelist^ March 10,
1892, that a doctrinal qualification is only required in the officers
of the Church at the time of ordination.

» Specification II.

He teaches erroneously in the New York Evangelist, March 10,
1892, and April 7, 1892, that whether in any individual case the
Church requires continued adherence to the doctrinal standard
received and adopted at ordination is only to be made known by
judicial process.

Now, suppose these propositions to be established? Do
they establish the charge ? Certainly not. For granting that
Church requires a doctrinal qualification only at ordination,
and that the opinion of a Church as to this qualification is
made known only by judicial process, it does not follow that
a minister may abandon essential features of the doctrinal
system and rightfully remain a minister in that Church.
This whole matter is a question of fact. I may be mis-
taken in the facts. If so, I should be glad to be instructed.
The quotations of the committee show that a doctrinal quali-
fication is required at licensure as well as at ordination.
They establish the further fact that a minister, when installed

204 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

in a new charge, ** promises to discharge the duties of a pas-
tor, and to maintain a deportment in all respects becoming a
minister of the Gospel according to his ordination engage-
ments." This might be interpreted as a renewal of his ordi-
nation adoption of the Confession. In that case, my state-
ment would have to be modified according to these additional
facts. But two errors in the statement of facts can not estab-
lish a charge of error in doctrine.

4. But I object further to this charge that it is insufficient
in legal effect because charge and specifications are unwar-
ranted by the language cited by the committee from my
article. If you will notice the language, you will easily dis-
cover that the committee charge me with an inference not in
my mind at all. The point which I had in mind was that it
is not the mind of the Church to secure absolute doctrinal
uniformity, else she would require frequent subsci'iption or
frequent examination or both. It was simply as evidence re-
garding the mind of the Church that I referred to the infre-
quency of subscription. Neither in this article, nor anywhere
else, do I assert that a minister may ** abandon essential
features of the system of doctrine held by said Church, and
which he received and adopted at his ordination, and right-
fully retain his position as a minister in said Church." Nor
do I believe it.

And here let me call your attention to the last citation from
my pamphlet, cited under Charge III. In that citation you
will find a statement concerning my own change pf view upon
the point under discussion. The quotation has no evident
bearing on the charge under which it is given or on any other,
unless it be this first one. I can not explain its appearance
at all, except as an indication that the committee wish to in-
sinuate a charge which they were not willing to make openly.
Having charged that I believe a minister may abandon essen-

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. , 205

tial features of the system of doctrine he has once accepted,
they wish you to conclude that I am conscious of having my-
self abandoned one of these essential features, and yet claim
(dishonestly as they suppose) to retain my position as a min-
ister. Now, if the committee want to charge me with dis-
honesty they ought to do it openly. Now is th^iy opportunity;
for they can v certainly frame a charge of immorality as easily
as a charge of heresy. The disadvantage of such a course is
that I would have an opportunity to reply to a charge directly
made, while the insinuation is more difficult to meet. Allow
me to meet this one by a denial. I have never said that a
minister may abandon essential features of our system, and
yet rightfully remain a minister in our Church. In the mat-
ter of subscription, I believe with Dr. Charles Hodg^e,* that
the Church can not ** demand perfect knowledge or perfect
freedom from error as evidence of a call to the ministry ;"
and, therefore, a subscription to a system of doctrine means,
as the original adopting act expressly says, that the Confes-
sion and Catechisms are **in all the essential and necessary
articles good forms of sound words and systems of Christian
doctrine." And for myself I may add that I never supposed
the doctrine of inerrancy, even at the • time when I held it
myself, was a doctrine of the Confession, much less an essential
feature of our system. The language of the pamphlet does
not imply that I so held at any time. I hope this plain state-
ment may contribute to the removal of prejudice, which
might be excited by the skillful implications of the commit-
tee, and may enable you more impartially to consider what I
have to say. Your judgment that I have acted in good faith
is as much to be prized as your judgment that I am ortho-
dox.

♦Hodge ; Church Polity, p. 332. Cf. Digest, p. 45.

206 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

The sum of what I have said about Charge I is therefore :
(1) The charge is insufficient in fornix iij that it does not de-
fine the article of faith impugned ; (2) the charge is insuffi-
cient in legal effect, in that it alleges as an ofiTense what is not
contrary to the Standards of the Church ; (3) the charge is
insufficient in legal effect, in that it is not sustained by the specifi-
cations ; (4) the charge and specifications are insufficient in
legal effect, in that both are based not on language which I
have actually used, but on the committee's inferences from
that language ; (5) the charge is so framed that in connection
with a quotation under another charge it makes an unwar-
ranted insinuation against my good faith, and is calculated to
prejudice the court against me.

On these grounds I request that Charge I be stricken out,
and also that the last quotation under Charge lH be canceled.

CHARGE III.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charge the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., a minister in said
Church, a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in a pamphlet
entitled "Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration," while alleging
that the Holy Scriptures are inspired, and an infallible rule of
faith and practice, with denying in fact their inspiration in the
sense in which inspiration is attributed to the Holy Scripture,
by the Holy Scriptures themselves and by the Confession of Faith-.

1. I ofcject to this charge that it is insufficient in form^ in
that it is not definite and specific. It specifies an article of
faith which I am alleged to impugn, namely: the doctrine
of inspiration. But the charge is that I impugn it in the sense
in which it is affirmed in the Confession and in the Scriptures.
Now, the charge to be definite should state explicitly whai is
the sense in which it is affirmed in the Scriptures and Confes-
sion, and which I deny. How else could I plead to the

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

207

charge ? Do the committee expect me to plead that I am
guilty of denying inspiration in the sense in which they suppose
it to be affirmed in the confession, when they have not defined
what that sense is ?

2. But I object further to this charge that it is in substance
the same as Charge II. One or the other is therefore insuffi-
cient in legal effect, unless I am twice to be tried on the same
charge. This is evident in the first place from the fact that
the citations from Scripture and from the Confession, and the
evidence from my pamphlet are identical under the two
charges. It is further evident if the two charges are placed
side by side and compared :

Charge II.

The Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Pre-
served Smith, D.D., being a min-
ister in said Church, and a mem-
ber of the Presbytery of Cincin-
nati, with teaching in a pam-
phlet entitled " Biblical Scholar-
ship and Inspiration," contrary
to a fundamental doctrine of the
Word of God and the Confes-
sion of Faith, that the Holy
Spirit did not so control the in-
spired writers in their composi-
tioh of the Holy Scriptures as
to make their utterances abso-
lutely truthful, i. e.y free from
error when interpreted in their
natural and intended sense.

Charge III.

The Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Pre-
served Smith, D.D., a minister
in said Church, a member of
the Presbytery of Cincinnati,
in a pamphlet entitled ** Bibli-
cal Scholarship and Inspira-
tion," while alleging that the
Holy Scriptures are inspired
and an infallible rule of faith
and practice, with denying in
fact their inspiration in the
sense in which inspiration is
attributed to the Holy Script-
ures by the Holy Scriptures
themselves, and by the Confes-
sion of Faith.

Now, if the committee had taken pains to define the doc-
trine of inspiration in the sense in which it is affirmed by the

208 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

Scriptures, they would have defined it as the doctrine that
inspiration secured in the writers of the Scriptures absolute
trvthfrdness when their words are interpreted in the natural
and intended sense. But this is exactly what I am charged
with impugning in the other charge. The two charges a»e
therefore identical, and one or the other should be stricken
out.

3. I object to the first specification under this charge that
it is insufficient in legal effect, because it is founded upon the
committee's inference from the language cited by them.

Specification I.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is con-
sistent with the unprofitableness of portions of the sacred writ-
ings.

Now, it would be easy to challenge the committee to show
from the passage cited, or any other, that I teach an inspira-
tion consistent with unprofitableness. The passage cited is
an argumentum ad hominem. It simply points out that the
emphasis of a verse of Scripture often urged against my view
is not on inspiration but on profitahleneas. It then asks those
who insist on a thoroughly verbal inspiration if they are consist-
ent in equally urging the profitableness of every jot and tittle
of Scripture. It is in effect saying, **let him that is without
sin among you cast the first stone." Whether this was a
legitimate argument or not, is not here in point. It was sim-
ply an argument from premises admitted by my opponents
(at that time, I mean), and contains no assertion of any kind
on my part. Now, it is impossible to suppose the committee
really supposed such an argument to contain an assertion. Is
it possible that they were willing to make this as a plausible
charge, with the idea that the greater the number of offenses

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

209

they could allege the better the chances of conviction ? It con-
cerns the committee to explain themselves. Surely ministerial
standing and reputation ought not to be attacked by illegiti-
mate inference.

4. I object further to this charge, that Specification 2 is
identical in substance with Charge 11.

Charge II.

Teaching that the Holy Spirit
did not so control the inspired
writers in their composition of
the Holy Scriptures as to make
their utterances absolutely
truthful.

Charge III, Spec. 2.

He teaches that the inspira-
tion of the Holy Scriptures is
consistent with error of fact in
their affirmations.

The substantial identity is so plain that I need not dwell
upon it. Either this specification is superfluous or Charge II
should be made a specification under Chargelll.

5. I object to Specification 3 under this charge, that it is su-
perfluous, being the same in substance with Specification 4 of
Charge II. '

Charge II, Spec. 4.

He teaches that the historical
unreliability of the author of
Chronicles was so great that the
truth of history therein con-
tained can only be discovered
by such investigation, discrim-
ination, and sifting as is neces-
sary to the discovery of the
truth in histories by uninspired
and fallible men.

Here, again, the substance is the same, being somewhat
more definitely stated in Charge IE, Specification 4.

' u

Charge III, Spec 3.

He teaches that the inspira-
tion of the Holy Scriptures is
consistent with such unreliabil-
ity in their utterances that the
truth of events can not be as-
certained from their utterances
themselves.

210 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

6. I object to Specification 4 under Charge III, that it is the
same in substance with Specification 2 of Charge II.

Charge III, Spec. 4. Charge II, Spec. 2.

He teaches that the inspira- He teaches that the inspired
tion of the Holy Scriptures is author of Chronicles has been
consistent with a bias in the in- guilty of suppressing sundry-
spired wnters, rendering them historic truths, owing to inabil-
incapable of recording the truth ity or unwillingness to believe
of events because incapable of them,
believing them.

The two specifications are the same, the one under Charge
II being again a little more definite in statement. Careful
comparison of the specifications I have put together shows
that the same thing is repeated in different forms.

I object, therefore, to Charge III and its specifications — (1)
the charge is insufficient in form, in that it does not define the
article of faith impugned ; (2) the charge is insufficient in
legal effect, in that it simply repeats Charge II ; (3) Specifi-
cation 1 is founded on an unwarranted inference from my
language ; (4) the specifications are insufficient in legal effect,
in that they simply repeat the facts already alleged in Charge
n or its specifications. Specification 2 being the same as
Charge 11; Specification 3 being the same with Charge II,
Specification 4; and Specification 4 being the same with
Charge 11, Specification 2.

On these grounds, I request that Charge III be stricken
out.

BESFONSE TO THE CHARGES. 211

CHARGE n.

As the gravamen of the indictment is evidently in this
charge, I shall venture to ask your close attention to a some-
Avhat extended discussion of it, first noticing some of the
specifications.

1. I object to Specifications 1 and 2, that they are ambigu-
ous in language.

Specification 1.

He teaches that the inspired author of Chronicles has been
guilty of asserting sundry errors of historic fact.

Specification 2.

He teaches that the inspired author of Chronicles has been
guilty of suppressing sundry historic truths, owing to inability or
unwillingness to believe them.

The ambiguity is in the use of the word guilty. I have ex-
pressly disclaimed attributing to the author of Chronicles inten-
tional falsification. But the language used by the committee
is likely to be construed as though I accused him of just this.
In his work as compiler, I suppose him to have chosen the
more congenial materials. To assert that the Holy Spirit did
not overrule his natural bias, is very different from asserting
that the Chronicler was guilty of asserting what he knew to
be false or of suppressing what he knew to be true.

2. Specification 4 is based on the committee's inference

only.

Specification 4.

He teaches that the historical unreliability of the inspired au-
thor of Chronicles was so «reat that the truth of history therein

212 RESPONSE TO THE OHARGES.

contained can only be discovered by such investigation, discrimina^
tion, and sifting as is necessary to the discovery of the truth in
histories by uninspired and fallible men.

Now that such investigation, discrimination, and sifting
does not imply historical unreliability as that word is ordi-
narily used, is evident on the slightest reflection. For such
investigation is used by all historical writers on. the Old or
New Testament. It is indispensable to all Histories of Israel,
Lives of Christ, Histories of the Apostolic Church. Do the
authors of such works, even the most orthodox, imply the
unreliability of their sources when they apply to them the
same methods as are applied to other historical documents
even of assured reliability ? No more than this 13 fairly con-
tained in my language, and the committee are, as we have
seen, bound to put the more favorable construction on lan-
guage adduced in evidence rather than the less favorable.

8. Specification 7 is a still more distinct example of an
inference not warranted by the language quoted as evidence.

Specification 7.

He teaches that the historic unreliability charged by him upon
the inspired historical writers of the Old Testament is chargeable,
though in a less degree, upon the ii^spired writers of the New
Testament.

If you will read carefully the citation from the pamphlet,
you will see that it only assumes that caution should be exer-
cised in regard to a igfrmri theories concerning the New Testa-
ment. No assertion is made about the New Testament writ-
ers, and the assumption ** that caution should be exercised
with regard to a prion theories" might be used by any one
OB any subject without implying even that he had errors or
unreliability in mind. As we have already seen, an infer-

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. *213

ence of the committee (in this case an illogical one) can form
no basis for a charge.

4. I object to Specification 8, that it is insufficient both in
form and legal effect, in that its language is ambiguous, and
that its substance is irrelevant to the charge.

Specification 8.

He teaches that the disclosures of religious ey.perience given by
the inspired authors of the Psalms are not in accord with the mind
of the Holy Spirit, and free from moral defect, but are simply the
experiences of imperfect and fallible though pious men. — Page
101, cited below.

The charge is defective in language, as you will see if you
ask what it affirms: ** He teaches that the disclosures of re-
ligious experience given by the inspired authors of the Psalms
are not in accord with the miod of the Holy Spirit, and free
from moral defect, but are simply the experiences of imperfect
and fallible though pious men." What does this mean ? The
subject of the sentence is evidently ** the disclosures of relig-
ious experience." These the committee suppose to be in ac-
cord with Hie mind of the Holy Spirit. Does this mean that it
was in accord with the mind of the Holy Spirit to make such
disclosures of religious experience ? This is the natural sup-
position. But this I have never denied. This is the very point
common to all believers in inspriration — it was the mind of
the Spirit to give us disclosures of religious experience in the
old dispensation. One result of this mind of the Spirit is
the Book of Psalms, But the committee probably mean not
that the disclosures were in accord with the mind of the Spirit,
but that the disclosures were disclosures of experiences in ac-
cord with the mind of the Spirit, and, therefore, free from
moral defect. For the specification adds at the end, by way

214 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

of contrast, ** but are simply the experiences of imperfect and
fallible though pious men." Now, look at this. The com-
mittee wish me to affirm that the experiences of the inspired
authors of the Psalms are the experiences of perfect and in-
fallible men — this is the logical inference from their specifica-
tion. I do not believe they really think I should affirm this,
and, therefore, I say their specification is badly drawn and
misleading. It confounds disclosures of religious experience
with the experience itself, and charges me with denying that
these disclosures are free from moral defect in affirming that
the experiences are those of imperfect and fallible men. But
if, as is possible, the committee mean to affirm the absolute
truthfulness of every sentence in the Book of Psalms when
they say the disclosures of religious experience are ** free from
moral defect," then the specification is the same as Specifica-
tion 9, which charges me with teaching that ** the assertions
made by the inspired authors of the Psalms are not to be re-
lied upon as absolutely truthful."

But granting that Specification 8 can be understood to
mean that the experiences of the authors of the Psalms are
experiences free from moral defect, then it becomes clear that
the specification has no place under the charge. The charge
is that of teaching ** that the Holy Spirit did not so control the
inspired writers in their composition of the Holy Scriptures
as to make their utterances absolutely truthful." Here it is
charged that I teach that certain disclosures are not disclosures
of experience free from moral defect. The two things do not
belong together. It would be possible to affirm the moral per-
fection while denying the inerrancy, or to affirm the inerrancy
while denying the moral perfection. Let us take another
example :

The disclosures of Jacob's experience in the book of Genesis
are absolutely truthful.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 215

The disclosures of Jacob's experience in the book of
Genesis are disclosures of an experience free from moral
defect.

This case is precisely parallel to the one formulated by the
committee. And if the committee were called upon to affirm
the moral perfection of Jacob's experiences, and were not
able to do so, they would not thereby deny the inerrancy of
the record. In fact, the committee have introduced here an
entirely new charge, namely, that of teaching that the ex-
periences of the authors of the Book of Psalms are not
free from moral defect This charge has nothing to do with the
other one, which is concerned with the inerrancy of the
Scripture record. This specification is, therefore, not only
ambiguous and obscure, but entirely irrelevant to the charge.

5. Specification 11 is insufficient inform and in legal effect in
that it is ambiguous and misleading in language, and in that
it is not borne out by the citation brought to support it.

Specification 11.

He specifically affirms the impossibility of the Old Testament
Scriptures being free from all error, whether of doctrine, fact, or
precept.

What is meant by my specifically affirming the impos-
sibility of the Old Testament being free from all error ? Not
to dwell upon the word spedficaUy, which seems designed to
lay an unwarranted emphasis on this affirmation above' other
affirmations in the pamphlet, I a%k now for the committee's
meaning of the word impossibility. The committee leave you
to infer, if they do not intend you to infer that I teach —
what? Why, that an errorless revelation is an impossibility
for God to make ! Of course, I never had any such notion.
It seems to me absurd to limit God's power in relation to his

216 RESPONSE TO THE CHAKGES.

word any more than in relation to his works. What I affirm,
as any one can see who will look impartially at the language
cited from any pamphlet, is the impossibility of concluding
from the facts as they are, that God has actually given such a
revelation as some suppose.

The impossibility I have in mind is a logical impossibility.
Concerning that the prosecution will admit (I suppose)
there is room for argument. What they seem to attribute to
me I brand as an impious absurdity. But whatever the com-
mittee suppose me to affirm, they suppose me to affirm con-
cerning doctrine and precept, as well as fact, I know not how
else to interpret the language ** he affirms the impossibility of
the Old Testament Scriptures being free from all error,
whether of doctrine, fact, or precept** Now I suppose it to be
generally understood — the committee certainly have no rea-
son to be ignorant of it — that we stand on the common
ground of the infallibility of the Scriptures as the Church's
rule of faith and practice. There is no difference between us
therefore, as to doctrine or precept. The sole question at issue
is whether every statement on matters of fact oiitside the
sphere of doctrine and precept is without error. And if you
will look at the language cited from the pamphlet under this
specification, you will be very clear that the committee have
entirely misrepresented my position. I say: ** Notice there
are two statements here [namely in Dr. Hodge's sentence J.
Had Dr. Hodge contented himself with affirming that the
whole Bible was written * under such an mfluence as makes it
for the Church the infallible rule of faith and practice,' no-
one could have objected. The other clause [namely that the
* whole Bible was written under such an influence as preserved
its human authors /rom all error'], is the one to which we ob-
ject, and whose application to the Old Testament I affirm to-
be impossible." This language is certainly clear enoughs

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 217

Yet the committee wish you to apply my reference to * the
other clause/ to the clause concerning "doctrine, fact, and
precept." Now I suppose the committee itself will agree that
they are appointed to convict me of error in what I have
actually said, and not to accuse me by misrepresentation of
saying what I have not said. But if so, this specification is
ambiguous, misleading, and unwarranted, and the committee
have laid themselves open to the charge of being willing by
misrepresentation to raise a prejudice in the mind of the court
— such a prejudice as nothing I can say will be sufficient to
overcome.

Up to this point, therefore, I object to Specifications 1, 2,
4, 7, 8, and 11, under this charge. 1 and 2 are insufficient
in form because ambiguous ; 4 and 7 are based on inferences
only ; 8 is ambiguous in form, and of no legal effect because
irrelevant to the charge; 11 is ambiguous in its . language,
misrepresents my position in two important respects, and is
unwarranted by the language cited in its support.

6. This leaves the charge supported by the remaining speci-
fications, and I now call your attention to the charge itself.
I object to Charge II as insufficient in legal eff^ect in two re-
spects: (A) Charge II, although it declares that I have
taught contrary to a fundamental doctrine of the Confession
and of the Scriptures, brings no evidence to show that the
doctrine alleged by them is fundamental. (B) Charge II al-
leges as the doctrine against which I have taught, a doctrine
which is not contained in the quotations from the Confession
and from Scripture which they have adduced under the
charge ; in other words, the doctrine of the committee is a
doctrine neither of the Scriptures nor of the Confession.
First let me ask your attention to the language of the
charge :

218 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., being a minister
in said Church and a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati,
with teaching, in a pamphlet entitled " Biblical Scholarship and
Inspiration," contrary to a fundamental doctrine of the Word of
God and the Confession of Faith, that the Holy Spirit did not so
control the inspired writers in their composition of the Holy
Scriptures as to make their utterances absolutely truthful, i. «.,
free from error when interpreted in their natural and intended
sense.

It is plainly the intention of the Committee to assert that
the Holy Spirit did so " control the inspired writers in their
composition of the Holy Scriptures as to make their utter-
ances absolutely truthful, i. e., free from error when inter-
preted in their natural and intended sense." Now I ask why
'* the natural and intended sense ?" Is not the natural sense
the intended sense ? Or is the intended sense something dif-
ferent from the natural sense ? I can not help seeing in this
phrase an obscurity that seriously mars the force of the propo-
sition. The intended sense— -intended by whom? If by the
Divine Author, we shall agree. If by the human author, I
doubt whether any will affirm it in the face of Peter's asser-
tion that the ** prophets sought and searched diligently who
prophesied of the grace which should come unto you, search-
ing what time or what manner the Spirit of Christ which was
in them did point unto." Or if any assert that the intention
of the Divine Author is necessarily the intention of the human
author, this proposition also is at least debatable. For in the
first chapter of Genesis, for example, it can hardly be doubted
that the intention of the human author was to describe a
natural week of six natural days. Probably the majority of
those who hear me hold that the intention of the Holy Spirit
was to describe a geologic week of six ** creative days." So

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 219

•

the question whose intention the committee means in their
phrase is not superfluous. And in that view alone the lan-
guage is ambiguous^ and should be amended. For be it re-
membered that the more distinctly we state the point between
us, the less likely we shall be to argue to no purpose.

The case before us is more serious than it appears at first
sight, because there is reason to think that the phrase is pur-
posely framed as it is, in order to allow the advocates of the
doctrine of inerrancy (so called) to escape from the rigor of
their own position. It has always been supposed, for exam-
ple, that the genealogy in the fifth chapter of Genesis gives
us a Scripture basis for a chronology of the period from the
Creation to the Flood. Any one who reads the chapter will
find this to be a natural deduction : **Adam lived a hundred
and thirty years and begat a son, and called his name Seth ;
and the/ days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hun-
dred years . . . and all the days that Adam lived were
nine hundred and thirty years, and h6 died." Similar state-
ments are given for each member of the line down to Noah.
You will notice that this is no ordinary genealogy, as:
** Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son,
Jehoshaphat his son." In the latter case, it is not a yiolent
supposition that some names are omitted. But the table in
Genesis is precise. It gives in each case the year in the fath-
er's life in which a particular son was born. Then, as if to
prevent our supposing any omission, gives us the remaining
years of the father's life, summing up also the total length of
his life. It then gives for that son the age in which his son *
yras born, with equally precise details of his life. Finally,
we are told that the Flood came in the six hundredth year of
the life of Noah, the last in this series. If these statements
9fe true in their ndwal sense, we can not help deducing from
them the length of time from the Creation to the Flood.

220 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

There is no escape from it, for the logic of arithmetic is an
iron logic.

But as it happens, the chronology based on these figures is
becoming inconvenient because of geological science, which
now aflSrms with confidence the existence of man upon the
earth at a date much earlier than the Creation can be placed
by the most liberal system of Biblical Chronology. In this
exigency the advocates of inerrancy take refuge in the very
clause used by the committee: ''the intended sense.'* Dr.
Green and Dr. Warfield now say it is not the intention of the
Biblical writers to give us the basis for a chronology.* What
light they have on the intention of the author more than we
have they do not tell us. Their rule would seem to be :
Where we can not suppose a statement true in the natural
sense, we must suppose the author to have intended some-
thing different. Let me ask you to look at this. For if min-
isterial standing is to depend on a juggle with a word, the
sooner we know it the better. For this is a clear case of
keeping the word of promise to our ear and breaking it to
our hope. It would be quite possible to learn from the advo-
cates of this sort of inerrancy to accept the phrase of the
committee. What I have denied is, that we can suppose cer-
tain statements of fact in the Book of Chronicles to be true
in their natural sense. Instructed by the advocates of in-
errancy, I now say : Probably the natural sense is not the
intended sense in these passages. And supposing that the
truth is always intended (however far the intention is from
realizing itself in the natural sense), I consent to afi^rm that
every statement of the Chronicler is true in the intended
sense. Why, if I were to do this, this very committee would

*Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1890. Presbyterian and Keformed
Review, 1891, p. 366.

RESPONSE fo THE CHARGES. 221

rise and accuse me of paltering in a double sense. They would
affirm, truthfully, that my inerrancy is no inerrancy, and add
to their charges one of dishonesty, in that I seem to affirm
what in fact I deny. Yet I have simply met them on their
own ground, and availed myself of their own carefully iframed
phrase.

- We are examining a sentence which is not only a charge
against the teaching of a minister, but which is also a scien-
tific statement of theologic truth. For both these reasons it
should be purged from vagueness or ambiguity, and for both
reasons the phrase I have criticised should have no place in it.
But we have now to look at the doctrine itself.

A. I object to the charge of the committee that it is in-
sufficient in legal effect, in that while it affirms a certain doc-
trine to be fundamental, it Brings no evidence that it is fuur
damental. The committee are no doubt right in supposing
that they must convict me of contradicting a fundamental
doctrine of the Confession, if they are to convict me at all.
For Dr. Charles Hodge long ago pointed out that any one
subscribing to a system of doctrine subscribes to the essential
and necessary articles of the system. There have always
been those in our ministry, as Dr. Hodge points out, who did
not assent to all the propositions of the Confession. Dr.
Hodge himself was understood not to affirm with the Confes-
sion that the Pope of Rome is the Man of Sin. It is of the
first importance, therefore, to decide whether we are dealing
with an essential and necessary article of our system. Is it
an essential article of our system that the writers of the
Scriptures were so controlled in their composition of these
books as to make their utterances absolutely truthful? The
presumption at least is against it. For one thing, the com-
mittee have not been able to state the doctrine of the charge
in words of the Confession itself. They have been obliged

222 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

to introduce a new set of phrases quite apart from the gen-
eral straightforward language of the Confession, and distin-
guished rather by a studied ambiguity, or at least a careful
' balancing of limitations. In fact, we are inclined to think
their doctrine a refinement of theological speculation, rather
than one of the foundations on which the faith of the Church
is built. . And if we discover (as I think we shall) that the
committee must put in still another limitation to make their
statement adequately express even their own doctrine, then
we shall be more than ever convinced that a doctrine which
requires such careful guarding is not fundamental. And I
may take it as an axiom that the Confession would not leave
its fundamental doctrines to be expressed by inference only.
I know of no other fundamental doctrine which is not ex-
pressed in so many words. Indeed, it is not too much to say
that the fundamental doctrines of our faith have whole chap-
ters devoted to them in the Confession. And where a doctrine
has not even a section of a chapter, or a sentence of a section
to express it, we are at full liberty to conclude that it is not
fundamental. Now the doctrine of the charge, if expressed
at all, is expressed by implication only. I hope to show that
it is not expressed even by implication. But for the present
I content myself with showing that it is contrary to all anal-
ogy to express a fundamental doctrine by implication.
That the Word of God in Scripture is the rule of faith and
life, that as opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine it is the
ordy infallible rule of faith and life ; that it contains what is
necessary for salvation ; that its authority depends upon God,
its Author — these are fundamental doctrines, and they are
plainly set down in the Confession. Not so the doctrine of
the committee. Therefore I conclude that it is not funda-
mental ; and if not fundamental, then it is no part of the

RESPONSE TO THE CHAB6ES. 223

system of doctrine to which a Presbyterian minister sub-
scribes.

There is another way of looking at this. As Dr. Hodge
plainly points out in his book on Church Polity, the system
to which we subscribed is the Reformed or Calvinistic system.
This means the doctrines common to the Reformed, as distin-
guished on one hand frotn the Lutheran, on the other from
the Arminian churches. And it is a significant fact that,
while the Reformed Confessions in general aflSrm with dis-
tinctness the fundamental doctrines of the suflSciency of Script-
ure, its independence of the Church, its divine authority, no
one of them unequivocally states the doctrine of the commit-
tee. A seeming exception in the Irish articles is only enough
to prove the rule. The doctrine of this charge is, therefore,
not a doctrine of the Reformed or Calvinistic system, and
certainly not a fundamental doctrine of our own Confession.
And, if not fundamental, this charge is insufficient in legal
effect.

B. But, so far from the doctrine in question (for brevity,
I may call it the doctrine of inerrancy) being a fundamental
doctrine of our Confession, I believe it can be shown not to
be a doctrine of the Confession at all. And I object to
Charge II, that it is insufficient in legal effect, because it makes
that to be a doctrine of the Confession and of the Scriptures
which is contained neither in the Scriptures nor in the Con-
fession. In order to show this, I must more nearly define the
doctrine in question, and I will begin with tiie points of agree-
ment. For the points of agreement are more nilmerous and
important than the points of difference. The basis of faith
common ^ us all is the idea of revelaiion. And by revelation
we mean God's disclosure of Himself and of his will. True
religion, which is the relation between God and man, exists
only as God condescends to make Himself known to man.

224 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

This revelation begins with individual men. Each revela-
tion is made at a particular time and. to a particular person.
But it is communicable by human language, and is actually
transmitted from the first recipients to other men by language
either spoken or written. Whether spoken or written, it is
the word of God to whosoever shall receive it. A mother's
message to her son by post is as truly her word as that which
she speaks into his ear when they meet face to face.

The Scriptures contain revelations so clothed in written
language. But it requires little knowledge of the Scriptures
to discover that they contain more than direct revelations. A
considerable part of the contents of these books is derived
from the personal observation of the writers or from other
sources. I may quote here Drs. Hodge and Warfield, to
whom the committee of prosecution owe the formula in Charge
II, and whose orthodoxy, therefore, they will not question.
**The human agency, both in the histories out of which the
Scriptures sprang and in their immediate composition and in-
spiration, is every-where apparent, and gives substance and
form to the entire collection of writings. It is not merely in
the matter of verbal expression or literary composition that
the personal idiosyncrasies of each author are freely mani-
fested by the untrammeled play of all his faculties, but the
very svhstance of what theyuurite is for the most part the product
of their own mental and apiritual ad^ivities, . . . Each
drew from the stores of his own original information, from
the contributions of other men, and from all other natural
sources.'^

Again, ** the natural knowledge came from all sources; as,
traditions, documents, testimonies, personal observations, and
recollections."* This language expresses only what is a

* Presbyterian Review, 1881, pp. 229, 231.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARQCS. 225

matter of common observation. It is entirely legitimate,
therefore, to distinguish between two elements in Scripture :
what was the subject of revelation, and what was not the
subject of revelation. But it is easy to see further that these
two parts have a close connection. What is drawn from
tradition, written documents, or the observation of the writer,
has a distinct bearing upon that which is directly revealed.
It furnishes a comment upon it, shows the setting, the time,
and circumstances in which the revelation was given. It
shows the progress of revelation, the difficulties it met, the
manner in which it was received, and the experiences of
those who received it. These two parts in this way make
up a homogeneous book. It consists of a revelation with il-
lustrative material, and the latter is of course subordinate
in importance to the revelation. Precision of language
would require us to say the Bible Gontains a revelation. In
common language, however, we say not only that it contains
a revelation, but that it is a revelation.^ This is speaking a
parte ^potiorij and not with scientific exactness.

Now, theology as a philosophic science is called upon to
account for the unity of this composite book. Theology asks
itself how this book made up of such diverse materials be-
comes one homogeneous whole. The answer to this question
is given by the word inspiration in its theological sense. In-
spiration as defined by the theologians is the activity of the
Holy Spirit exerted on the minds of the writers of the Bible,
which not only led them to commit the revelation to writing,
but also led them to select this illustrative material and ar-
range it in proper shape.

Now, up to this point we are all agreed. All parties here

acknowledge the following points : (a) The Bible contains a

revelation from God. (6) It contains other material not in

the proper sense revealed, (c) This material is of importance

16

226 REfia>ONSES to the charges.

to us because of its bearing on the history of revelation.
(cQ This material was chosen and arranged by men acting
under a distinct influence of the Holy Spirit, which influence
we call technically inspiratwn; and (e) the result is a book
which in its totality is the Church's permanent; and infal-
lible rule of faith and life. I say, all parties agree up to this
point. The point on which they differ is an inference con-
cerning the extent of this activity of the Holy Spirit which we
call inspiration. The claim of your committee is that the
Holy Spirit could not have made use of a quotation (for ex-
ample) without correcting every error in it, no matter how in-
different to his main purpose. Inspiration as they conceive
it is such a superintendence . over the mind of the writers of
the whole Bible as made their every statement free from error.
The design of God is inspiration, we are told, **is a record
without error of the facts and doctrines he had commissioned
his servants to teach."* This includes, according to the theory,
every fact stated in Scripture. Others of us hold that the de-
sign of God to make the record (in matters outside the sphere
of doctrine and morals) absolutely errorless is not affirmed by
Scripture itself, and is opposed to the facts as we have them.

Now, which is right and which is wrong, does not concern
us here. The question is : is the doctrine of the committee
the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith ?

In answering this question, I might content myself with
quoting the accomplished historian of the Westminster As-
sembly, Dr. Mitchell, who speaks as follows: **If any chap-
ter in the Confession was more carefully framed than another,
it was this : * Of the Holy Scripture.' It formed the subject
of repeated and earnest debate in the House of Commons, as
well as in the Assembly, and I think it requires only to be
fairly examined to make it appear that its framers were so

* Hodge and Warfield, Presb. Rev., p. 228

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 227

far from desiring to go beyond their predecessors in rigor,
that they were at more special pains than the authors of any
other confession, 1. To avoid mixing up, the question of the
canonicity of particular books with the question of their au-
thorship where any doubt at all existed on the latter point.
2. To leave open all reasonable questions as to the mode and
degree of inspiration^ which could consistently be left open by
those who accepted the Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith
and duty. 3. To refrain from claiming for the text such ab-
solute purity, and for the Hebrew vowel points such an-
tiquity as was claimed by the Swiss Formida GoncordicB, while
asserting that the originals of Scripture are, after the lapse of
ages still pure and perfect for all those purposes for which
they are given.' * This is the opinion of a very high au-
thority, and ought to be kept in mind in examining the cita-
tions given by the committee to establish their view. To
these I now invite your attention. The first is the opening
section of the Confession.

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and
providence do so manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of
God as to leave men inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to
give that knowledge of God and of his will, which is necessary
unto salvation ; therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times, and
in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will
unto his Church, and afterward for the better preserving and pro-
pagation of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and
comfort of the Church against the corruption of the^ flesh and the
malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto
writing^ which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary,
those former ways ot God*s revealing his will unto his people be-
ing now ceased.

Now look carefully and candidly at that section and define

* Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Di-
vines, edited by the Rev. Alex. F. Mitchell, D.D., pp. xlix and 1.

228 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

precisely what it asserts. The main fact is that it pleased the
Lord to reveal himself and to declare his will unto his
Church, and that that revelation has come to vs because com-
mitted wholly to writing. That the revelation was committed
wholly to writing does not prove that nothing else was committed
to writing along with it. The Westminster divines knew as
well as we do that not all in the Bible belongs strictly to God's
revelation — not every sentence has its origin in the revealing
action of God. A part of the contents of Scripture is de-
rived from other sources than direct revelation, and this the
Assembly must have known. But for them, engaged as they
were, in defining the faith of the Church, this other and su-
bordinate part of Scripture was left out of view, as of less
importance. Their main interest was in the Word of God
contained in Scripture, and their affirmations are made con-
cerning this. Had you pointed out to them that the cata-
logue of David's heroes for example as given in II Sam.
xxiii, is evidently derived from the roster of the army, and
not from direct revelation, they would have admitted it at
once. But that would not have changed their language, be-
cause it was not their purpose to make any affirmation con-
cerning such portions of the Scriptures.

But it will be said that in the next section they identify
the Scripture with the Word of God written. So they do.
But it was in the sense in. which I identify my copy of
Shakespeare with **the Works of Shakespeare," although it
contains notes by Hudson, or Valpy, or Farness.. The use of
such language decides nothing as to the minor and less essen-
tial parts of the book which we agree in calling the Word of
God. And it is noticeable that this section which enumerates
the canonical books and adds, * * all which are given by inspira*
tiou of God to be the rule of faith and life," defines the main

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 229

object 80 clearly as to show where the interest of the Con-
fession lies. And as if to convince us that the Westminster
Divines did not mean to take a rigid position on this ques-
tion they modified their language in this section very signifi-
cantly. The Westminster Confession as we know is framed
to a considerable extent on the so-called Irish articles, prob-
ably drawn up by the celebrated Archbishop Ussher. These
Articles now in their second section enumerate the books of
Scripture just as our Confession does, and adds : **A11 which we
acknowledge to be given by the inspiration of God, and in
that regard to be of most certain credit and highest authority."
Now, as it is certain that the Westminster Assembly had
these articles before them, we ask the reason for this change.
Had it been their mind to assert the doctrine of inerrancy this was
the time to do it. Instead of doi^g it they turned deliberately
away from it and contented themselves with affirming again
the main object for which the Scriptures are given. This
looks like intention, and in the absence of other evidence we
are authorized in concluding that tte Confession was pur-
posely framed so as not to assert that the Scripture writers
were so contro^Jed as to make their every utterance abso-
lutely truthful.

Next, let me call your attention to the strongest citation
adduced by the committee, the one given by them last. It
is:

Chap. XIV., Sec. 2. " By this faith, a Christian believeth to be
true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God
himself speaking therein ; and acteth differently, upon that which
each particular passage thereof containeth ; yielding obedience to
the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the
promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the
principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting

230 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life,
by virtue of the covenant of grace."

This is seemingly a very strong passage, and we may well
say that if the doctrine of the charge is not asserted here it is
not asserted anywhere in the Confession. Nevertheless it is
not asserted here, as a little examination will convince you.
By our faith as Christians we believe to be true ** whatsoever
is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself
speaking therein." This has reference to the revelation of
God in Scripture, however, not to the Scripture as a whole, as
is shown. by the following sentence. For we are told that
the Christian acts differently upon that which each particylar
passage thereof containeth ; yielding obedience to the commands,
trembling at the ihreatenings and embracing the promises of
God. This is a catalogue of what those passages contain
which are to be believed for the authority of God himself
speaking therein. Now, will this committee or any one else
in this house say that the Bible contains nothing but com-
mands, threatenings, and promises ? But if it is impossible
to assert this, it is impossible to assert that the Confession
makes it a Christian grace to believe those statements of
Scripture which contain neither command, threatening, nor
promise.

For it is noticeable here that this apparently most decisive
of the committee's proofs is taken, not from the chapter on
the Scriptures, but from the chapter on Saving Faith. If
the Confession asserts the truthfulness of every statement of
Scriptures, it also makes the grace of Saving Faith to consist
in believing every statement of the Scriptures. We ought,
then, to make new terms of communion, and examine every
applicant for admission to the Lord's table, not on his recep-
tion of Christ as his Savior, but on his accepting every state-

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 231

ment of the inspired writers as ** absolutely true, L e., free
from error when interpreted in its natural and intended sense."
This is the only logical position, and its very absurdity shows
what I am trying to establish, namely : that the interest of
the Westminster Divines was centered in the Word of God
in Scripture. In common with all Protestants, they were de-
sirous to vindicate this as the supreme rule of faith and life.
As against the Roman Catholics, they defended it as the only
rule of faith and life. But they did not concern themselves
with an inerrancy that extends to every assertion of the Bible,
no matter how unessential to faith or morals. And if this
is all we can establish upon these, which are the most decis-
ive passages in the Confession, we certainly can not establish
it upon the others cited by the committee. Section IV indi-
cates the authority of Scripture as independent of the testi-
mony of the Church. Section V emphasizes the testimony
of the Holy Spirit. Section VIII opposes the Roman Catho-
lic exaltation of the Vulgate version. Section IX asserts the
sufficient clearness of Scripture and the so-called 4-iialogy of
Faith. Section X is directed against the Roman Catholic
claim of infallible councils. No one of them affirms or im-
plies more than we have found in the sections above discussed.
Strictly in the same line is the question from the Larger
Catechism :

Q. 157. How is the Word of God to be read ?

A. The Holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and rever-
ent esteem of them ; with a firm persuasion that they are the very
ward of Gody and that he only can enable us to understand them ;
with desire to know, believe and obey the will of God revealed
in them, etc.

This question and answer are intended to guide us in the
reading of the Word as a means of grace. The emphasis is

232 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES

evidently upon the will of God revealed in the Scriptures. Do
the committee mean that the answer of the Catechism can be
applied literally to every text of the Bible ? Must we read
the genealogy of Esau with a high and reverent esteem, and
with the desire to know, believe and obey the will of God re-
vealed in it ? The argument of the committee proves too
much. Look at Question 186, the answer to which affirms
the whole word of God to be of use to direct us in the duty of
praying. It is evident, I think, that what the Catechism
affirms of the Word of God in this passage can not be applied
to each particular proposition contained in the Bible And
if not in this passage, then not in the other and the position
of the committee falls to the ground.

The other citations made by the committee from the cate*
chisms are no more decisive than those I have examined. In
fact, they are in substance the same as the sections of the
Confession already discussed. I should like, however to no-
tice one question not adduced by the committee. It is Ques-
tion 5 of the Larger Catechism (Q. 3 of the Shorter) :

Q. 5. What do the Scriptures principally teach ?
A The Scriptures principally/ teach what man is to believe con-
cerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

•

Now, if we are to construe rigidly, here is the place to do
it. When the Catechism specifies what the Scriptures prin-
dpaUy teach, it is fair to presume that the authors have in
mind the fact that they also teach subordinatdy. Their infal-
libility in what they prlndpaUy teach is abundantly asserted
in the Confession. No distinct assertions of inerrancy in
what is subordinate is any-where found. I conclude that the
Westminster Assembly did not choose to make any assertion
regarding it. Probably the majority of the Assembly be-
lieved in this inerrancy. But they were mindful of the fact

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 233

that it was not accepted by all Evangelical men. Luther,
Melancthon, and Calvin had indicated the existence of errors
in non-essentials. The Westminster Divines did not care to
frame a statement of doctrines to which those heroes of the
Seformation could not have subscribed. Hence the reticence
of the Confession on the point affirmed in Charge II.

But we are not yet through with this matter, for it is clear
that some amongst us are willing to press the language of the
Confession to its extremest limit. It is only fair to show that
this process proves ..^nore than they themselves can soberly
maintain. I will illustrate their position by an article of the
Rev. Dr. W. H. Roberts which has appeared opportunely for
the present discussion,* This article states as the doctrine of
the Confession, **not only that God is the witness whose au-
thority and truthfulness can not be disputed," but also ** that
the facts of Scripture, the great doctrines of Scripture, all {he
statements of Scripture, are so connected with the divine
Being, that he is author of all." The Confessioif, therefore,
" makes belief in the historical a>ccuracy of the word of God,
as well as a belief in the truth of its spiritual teachings, de-
pendent wholly upon the authority of God, the truthfulness
of God, and the actual divine authorship. It makes the in-
errancy of Ghd the basis for the inerrancy of his Word." Now
let us be consistent and apply this strict construction to the
Bible. Let us ask the advocates of this doctrine to explain
those discrepancies which they themselves acknowledge to be
apparent upon the surface of Scripture. f If we do this, we
shall find that they apply their apparently rigid theory, not to
the Scriptures we now have, but to certain ** original auto-
graphs " which no one has yet recovered. They maintain not

* Herald and Presbyter, Oct. 19, 1892.
t So Hodge & Warfield, p. 237.

234 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

that the Scriptures are inerrant but that ** the original Script-
ures were inerraut."* Now this is a very different proposi-
tion, and one entirely unknown to the Westminster Assembly.
For it must be evident to the most careless reader that the
Scriptures of the Confession are the Scriptures we now have.
Or, rather, what the Confession affirms, it affirms of the sev-
enteenth century Hebrew and Greek editions which are more
imperfect than our own. If in ours we can not establish the
desired inerrancy without assuming unknown original auto-
graphs, much less can we adopt the language of the Con-
fession in the sense of the Confession itself. In other words,
to save the alleged Confessional doctrine of inspiration, we
must go directly counter to the Confessional doctrine of the
purity of the text. For on this point we have a clear affirma-
tion of the Confession itself, to the effect that the Hebrew and
Greek texts have been **by God*s singular care and provi-
dence kept pure in all ages," and that they are, therefore, au-
theutical. Now the attempt has been made to show that the
Confession is less strenuous on this point than on inerrancy.
But the language is stronger on this point than on the other.
It is not that the texts have been kept dngidarly pure, but
that they have been kept pure. If the affirmation of truth
means absolute truth, certainly the affirmation of purity
means absolute purity. That one was attained by inspiration,
the other by singular care and providence, does not affect the
result, which is stated as strongly in one case as in the other.
Now it follows from this that every affirmation of the Con-
fession, if meant to apply to the whole of Scripture, is meant
to apply to the whole of Scripture as we now have it. With
this in mind, review Section V of the Confession, quoted by
the committee, and see whether they or ariy one else can force

* So Dr. Roberts, in the article just quoted.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 235

Strict compliance with its doctrine as a text of ministerial
fitness.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the
Church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ;
and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine,
the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the
whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it
makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incom-
para))le excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof are argu-
ments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word
of God.

What I say is : force the literal acceptance of these propo-
sitions as describing our present Scriptures and we should va-
cate every seat in the Presbytery. For here is no " original
autograph" in which we can take refuge. The Scripture doth
evidence itself by these perfections. For example, no Greek
scholar will now affirm the majesty of the style of all parts of
the New Testament. Calvin emphasizes the low and mean
style of the Gospels. Drs. Hodge and Warfield say: ** No
one claims that inspiration secured the use of good Greek."*
The ** consent of all the parts" is notoriously interfered with
by discrepancies apparent on the surface of our present texts.
The ** entire perfection" is expressly limited by those who
most strenuously affirm it to the original autographs.

Now, remember I am not arguing for the intrinsic excel-
lence of any theory. We are concerned with the specific
question : Is it a doctrine of the Westminster Confession that
the Holy Spirit so controlled the inspired writers in their
composition of the Holy Scriptures as to make their utter-
ances absolutely truthful, i, e., free from error, when inter-
preted in their natural and intended sense ? The answer to

* Pres. Rev., p. 246.

2^6 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

this question is a dilemma. Either the authors of the Con*
fessiou did not assert this and meant their expressions to
apply to their main subject — the Word of God in Scripture
that is ; or else they affirmed of our present Bible such iner-
rancy as no one at the present day can accept. To escape
from this alternative is impossible. And whichever position
you take you can not sustain this charge. Or, rather, if you
take one position you can not sustain it, because it then
charges nothing contrary to the Confession. If you take the
other position you raise a test of ministerial standing which
will shut out every one of our own number. Not that I
think the latter equally probable with the former. Instead
of supposing that the Confession states a doctrine which no
intelligent Christian of this century can adopt, and which
many intelligent Christians of other centuries have not
adopted, I believe its natural intent and meaning is to state
what we all believe — that the Word of God contained in the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only iniklli-
ble rule of faith and practice.

But a further inquiry awaits us. It has always been the
practice of our Church to derive its doctrine from the Script-
ures. **The supreme judge by which all controversies of
religion are to he determined, and all decrees of councils,
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private
spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to
rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scripture." Bear in mind the exact point which is to he
tested by Scripture. It is not whether the Bible contains a
revelation — this is admitted on all hands. It is not whether
the recipients of the revelation were fitted hy mspiration both
to receive and communicate it — this is equally admitted. It
is not whether the writers of the hooks were divinely guided
in choice of material from whatever source, for this is not con-

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 237

tested by any. The only issue is the further one : whether
they were also divinely guided to remove from previously ex-
isting literary material every error of fact, no matter how indif-
ferent in its hearing on faith and morals; and, whether in giving
their own observation and experience they were so far lifted
above the universal liability to error that they never made a
mistake, even in the sphere of secular science or history. For
this is the doctrine of the conimittee, and this they affirm to
be a fundamental doctrine of the Scripture. They claim it
is so fundamental that no one accepts the system of doctrine
contained in the Scriptures who does not accept this doctrine.
Now, I hope to show you not only that this doctrine is not a
fundamental doctrine of Scripture, but also that it is not
a doctrine of Scripture at all. The only way to do this is to
examine the texts adduced by the committee, for it is clear
that they have cited every thing that bears on the subject.
In fact they might have made their case just as strong, and
have saved a good deal of time for all of us, by bringing for-
ward a tithe of the number. Perhaps the great number of
texts makes a stronger impression at first, and we must be on
our guard against such an impression, for it is clear that a
hundred texts that have no bearing on the subject do not add
a particle to the proof. That the committee are able to find
80 many texts that they can allege to bear on the subject
need not lead us to the foregone conclusion that some of them
mvk bear on it. It is very possible that we shall discover not
one of them to affirm what the committee uphold. Besides
this, we must remember that we are to search for the sense of
Scripture itself without dogmatic prepossessions. When we
have been accustomed to use a word like inspiration in a dis-
tinct technical sense, we attach that sense to it wherever we
meet it. But as we have seen the technical sense of inspira-
tion which makes it result in absolute freedom from error is a

238 RESPONSE TO THE CHABGES.

theological refinement based rather on supposed logical neces-
sities than on direct and positive affirmations of the creeds.
Did time allow, I should be glad to show that the Biblical
usage is something very different from theological usage. For
the present we may note the suggestive fact that the word in-
spiration occurs but twice in our Authorized Version, and in
one of these the Revised Version replaces it by the more ac-
curate rendering breath.

As proof that the writers of the Holy Scriptures were so
controlled in their composition of these books as to make all
their utterances ** absolutely truthful, i. 6., free from error
when interpreted in their natural and intended sense," your
committee cite seventy-one passages, some of them consisting
of several verses, besides referring to eight others. In order
to facilitate the handling of so much material, I will classify
these texts and indicate briefly Svhat bearing (if any) they
have on the subject. It will be seen that on a Ay theory only
a very few of them bear on the subject. I make the follow-
ing classes :

(a) Those which have no bearing on the subject whatever.
Such are — Is. viii, 20: **To the Law and to the Testimony
If they speak not according to this word it is because they
have no light in them." This is a palpable mistranslation.
The prophet has no reference to the Scriptures. He is de-
nouncing the folly of Israel in seeking light as to their future
from the wizards and necromancers instead of from their God.
He says, therefore: **And when they say unto you : inquire
of the mediums and of the wizards who chirp and mutter —
should not a people inquire of its God ? Should the living
seek unto the dead for instruction and for testimony t Surely
they who have no dawn speak according to this word." Here
is no reference to Scripture, inspiration or inerrancy. Daniel
X, 21: **But I will show thee that which is noted in the

BESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 239

Scripture of truth." The committee seem to have been mis-
led by the word acrvpiure, which they begin with a capital
letter, contrary to the best editions of the Authorized Version.
The Revised Version renders correctly the ^'writing of truth."
Reference to the context shows that the Scriptures can not
be intended. For the angel who is speaking with Daniel
promises to reveal the future. This promise he carries out in
the next chapter, rvat on the basis of any earlier revelation, but
in an entirely new prediction. The vjriting of truth, in which
finds this written, is probably the heavenly book of God's de-
cree, to which the angel had access, as yet unseen by mortal
eye.

Ps. cxix, 160: ** Thy Word is true from the beginning."
The correct translation is " the sum of thy word is truth,"
and the context shows that the Psalmist has reference not to
the Scriptures, .but to the commands of God therein contained.
** Many are my persecutors and mine adversaries ; Yet have I
not siverved from thy testimonies. I beheld the treacherous
dealers and loathed them ; Because they observe not thy word."
These verses (157, 158) show what he had at heart. 2 Pet.
Pet. iii, 15, 16: ** Even as our beloved brother Paul also,
according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you ; as also
in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things ; wherein
are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant
and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,
unto their own destruction."

The committee ought to indicate what they wish to prove
by this text. I can find in it only that the Epistles of Paul
were already reckoned as Scripture. There is no illusion to
inspiration or inerrancy. Rev. xxii, 18, 19: " For I testify
unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book. If any man 6hall add unto these things, God shall
add unto him the plagues which are written in this book :

240 RESPONSE TO THE CHABQES.

and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book
of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which
are written in this book." This anathema on whoever shall
add to or take away from this Book is often quoted as though
it referred to the New Testament or the whole Bible. Even
if it did it would not strike me, for I have not proposed to
take any thing away from the Scriptures, nor to add any thing
to them. You hardly need to be reminded, however, that
the author refers only to his own book of Revelation, which
he forbids to interpolate or abridge. It can not refer to
the New Testament, for confessedly the Revelation was
written before several of the books of the New Testament.
The Apostle John himself would fall under his own anathema
because he added his Gospel and Epistles to the New Testa-
ment after the Book of Revelation was completed. It is a
question whether the committee of prosecution wish or expect
to be taken seriously when they allege such a text as proof of
inerrancy.

Matt. X, 19, 20, with the parallel, Luke xii, 11, 12 : " But
when they deliver you up take no thought how or what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your
Father which speaketh in you."

These passages are specific prontiises to the disciples for the
time of persecution. It has no reference to any written
word of theirs. It might be quoted as an excuse for not
making adequate pulpit preparation much more appropriately
than as a proof of superintending inspiration in the New Testa-
ment writers.

Duet, iv, 2, and xviii, 1,15: "Ye shall not add unto the word which
I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 241

may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I com-
mand you.

"And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto
the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his command-
ments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will
set thee on high above all nations of the earth.

" But it shall come to pass if thou wilt not hearken to tlie voice
of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and
his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses
shall come upon thee, and overtake the^."

These texts enforce the observance of God's commands.
This is clear from the empha^s laid in the second passage
on observing to do all his commandments. And chapter iv,
the first verse, emphasizes the same theme : **And now Israel
hearken unto the statutes and the judgments [or cvstorns] which
I am teaching you to do,"

Acts, xxiv, 14 : *' But this* I confess unto thee, that after the
way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers,
believing all things which are written in the Law and in
the Prophets." Why did not the committee quote the next
verse? ** Having hope towards God which they themselves
also look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the
just and the unjust." This evidently defines the belief which
Paul has in mind. That is to say, he here affirms that his
faith as a Christian accepts the religious contents of the Old
Testament. That he should affirm more than this in the
present passage would introduce matter entirely irrelevant to
his purpose. Even if we could suppose the Apostle here to
affirm belief in every scientific and historical assertion in the
Old Testament, this would be no argument for us, unless he
were expressly made our example, which is not the case.
Gal. iii, 8. **And the Scripture foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel
16

/

242 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.'^
The Scripture is here persouified, and made not only to fore-
see the future, but also to ** Preach the Gospel " unto Abra-
ham. But this bold figure of speech can not be made to
yield a doctrine of inerrancy. In fact it creates a difficulty
to literal inerrancy, for it makes the Scriptures preach the
Gospel to Abraham, when the Scripture was not in existence
in Abraham's time.

(b) Two passages may here be discussed together, which
promise to the disciples guidance in the spiritual life. They
are John xiv, 26, xvi, 13-15.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
brin^ all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said
unto you." ...

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide
you into all truth ; but whatsoevei* he shall hear, that shall he
speak ; and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me ; for he shall receive mine, and shall shew
it unto you.

All things that the Father hath are mine ; therefore, said I, that
he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

It is perfectly clear that these are promises to the disciples
that the Spirit should enlighten them concerning the teachings
of Christ ; for the things to be brought to their remembrance
are whatsoever Christ has said to them. To take the passage
(as is sometimes done) to be a promise to the ** College of the
Apostles," that they should be infallibly guided in writing the
New Testament is impossible. First, because New Testament
books were written by others than the College of the. Apostles ;
and secondly, because the discourse of our Lord from which
the passage is taken, is addressed to the disciples as disciples.
This is clear from the context. For the discourse begins with

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 243

the word of consolation : " Let not your heart be troubled,"
intended for the disciples through all time. This surely was
not limited to the College of the Apostles, nor was the verse
following the committee's citation (xiv, 27) : ** Peace I leave
with you ; my peace I give unto you." The whole discourse
is addressed to the Church of all time. It promises the guid-
ance of the Spirit to all believers. But how far this guid-
ance is from securing inerrancy, the unhappy divisions of the
Church testify.

(c) Next w^ have texts which affirm that the preached word
18 a source of spiritual life. This is the doctrine of our
Church, for **the Spirit of God maketh the reading, but
espedaUy the preaching of the word, an effectual means of con-
vincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in
holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation."* They
are: I Peter i, 23, 25. ** Being begotten not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of Ood^ which
liveth and abide th forever. . . . But the word of Lord
abideth forever. And this is the word that was preached a8
good tidings unto you." The uniform doctrine of the Script-
ures is that faith cometh by hearing. So true is this that not
once so far as I know, is the reading of the written Word
mentioned in the New Testament as a source of conversion.
In the single apparent exception (the Ethiopian Eunuch) the
written Word had to be expounded by the living preacher to
be effective. In fact, it is doubtful if the phrase word of God
(Xdyog eeov) ig ever used in the New Testament of the written,
rather than the preached Word. In the overwhelming ma-
jority of cases certainly it is used of the preached Word.

I Thess. ii, 13, quoted by the committee, is a case in point:
**And for this cause we thank God without ceasing, that when

* Shorter Catechism, Qu. 89.

244 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

ye received from us the word of hearing, even the word of God,
ye/ accepted it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the
word of God, which also worketh in you that believe." Paul
did not bring them the written Word in any shape, for they
had the New Testament already, and there was no written
New Testament — apparently not a single book. What he
brought them was the preached Word. We have no reason
to depart from this analogy, therefore, in John, xvii, 16, 17,
**They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.
Sanctify them by the truth ; thy word is truth." Indeed, it
is certain that our Lord has no reference to the Scriptures, for
in verse 14 he says: **I have given them tliy word," He
gave them not the Scriptures, for they had the Old Testament
before he came. He gave them the Gospel, and that not a
written, but an oral Gospel.

Now see the position in which we are placed. Your com-
mittee affirm it as the doctrine (and a fundamental doctrine)
of Scripture that the writers of the Holy Scriptures were so
controlled in their composition as to make their utterances ab-
solutely truthful, i, e., free from error when interpreted in
their natural and intended sense. They have adduced as
proof a large number of texts, a considerable portion of which
we have examined, and we have found not only that they con-
tain no affirmation of the committee's doctrine, but that they
do not bear on the Scriptures as distinguished from the
preached word at all. We shall now, however, take up some
texts which do bear more or less directly on the Scriptures.

(d) A few of them affirm the value of the Old Testament
as a source of admonition or example. I Co. x, 11 : "Now
these things happened unto them by way of example, and
they were written for our admonition upon whom the ends of
the world have come." The Apostle means the history of the
Exodus — especially the sins and punishments of the people.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 245

And when he says the things happened unto them typicaUy
(Greek : tvttikcjc), he means that the Old Testament history
contains types of the Christian life. He sees in the passing
of the Red Sea a type of baptism, in the **rock that fol-
lowed the people," a type of Christ. It is clear that this no
naore asserts inerrancy than the use of any other history for
instruction asserts inerrancy. Can nothing be written for our
admonition unless it is ** absolutely truthful, i, e., free from
error when interpreted in the natural and intended sense " ?
I believe heartily that the Old Testament history was written
for our admonition, but I can not see that this requires iner-
rancy in every statement of the writers. No more decisive
than this passage is the account of our Lord's conflict with
the tempter, Matt, iv, 4, 7, 10 :

** But he answered, and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but .by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth
of God.

" Jesus said unto him. It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt
the Lord thy God.

" Then said Jesus unto him. Get thee hence, Satan : for it is
written. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only
shalt thou serve."

The Savior made good use of the Old Testament Scriptures.
He made them profitable for correction, and in this he was our
example. But it is noticeable that in doing this he chose in-
variably from the Word of God in Scripture. For every one
of his citations is- made from a direct command of God him-
self. Whatever his use of them proves, it proves only for the
revelation of God in Scripture, which, as I have abundantly
shown, is not in question here, and of inerrancy of the record
we hear not a word. Seemingly stronger, but in reality not
so, is Psalm xix, 7: **The law or (indruction) of Jehovah

246 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

Is perfect, converting (or better, refreshing) the soul ; the tes-
timony of Jehovah is faithful, making wise the simple." The
** testimonies of Jehovah " describes God's revelation of his
will. The * instruction of Jehovah " is frequently used of
the word spoken by the prophets. Its application to the
written Law (the Pentateuch) is later. And if any one
wishes to make the text attribute inerrancy to the Scripture
because it speaks of the Law as perfect, he may be reminded
that perfection is attributed to Noah (Gen. vi, 9), Jacob
(Gen. XXX, 27), and Job (Job, i, 1). The Hebrew root used
is the same in all these cases with the one used in the Psalm.
It can not, therefore, signify an errorless perfection. Similar
in import is Proverbs, xxx, 5, 6: ** Every word of God is
pure ;" or as it ought to be, *' Every word of God is tried.*'
The author has in mind his experience of the comforting and
helping power of God's revelation. This is evident from verse
6 : ** Do not add unto his words lest he rebuke thee.** If
the author had the Scriptures in mind, all who wrote later
than he, and whose books were added to the- canon, would fall
under his condemnation. Not to add to the commands of
God would be of force against the Jewish tendency to multi-
ply traditions, and it is perhaps this which he has in mind.

(e) We come now to a series of texts which bear on the
general subject before us so far as to assert the reality of a
revelation, but which do not necessarily affirm more than this.
One of the most familiar of these is Ex. iv, 14-16: "And
thou shait speak to him and shaU place the words in his mouth;
and I will be with thy mouth and with his mouth, and I will
teach you what ye shall do ; and he shall speak for thee to
the people and he shall be to thee a mouth and thou shalt be
God to him." A parallel passage is Ex. vii, 1, 2: **And
Jehovah said unto Moses: see I have made thee God to
Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 247

shalt speak all that I command thee, and Aaron thy brother
shall speak with Pharaoh, and he will send away the sons of
Israel from his land/** The two passages taken together show
the method of revelation — God speaks his message to the
prophet, and he delivers it to the people; just as Moses spoke
to Aaron and Aaron spoke for him to Pharaoh. The prophet
is God's herald, and has the divine assistance in his work.
There is not a word about a 'subsequent record even of the
revelation, much less about the record of matters not directly
revealed. There is no promise of an inspiration " the es-
sence of which is superintendence.'* Nor can we find more
in Num. xii, 6-8 :

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet
among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a
vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

" My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

" With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and
not in dark speeches ; and the similitude of the Lord shall he be-
hold : wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my
servant Moses ? "

By the utmost pressure, you can get no more out of this
than that Moses was pre-eminent among the prophets. The
other passage in Numbers, on the rebellion of Korah, does
not even aflSrm this. Num. xvi, 28-30, 33 :

"And Moses said. Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath
4sent me to do all these works ; for I have not done them of my own
mind.

" If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be
visited after the visitation of all men, then the Lord hath not
sent me.

" But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her
mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them,

248 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

and they go down quick into the pit ; then shall ye understand
that these men have provoked the Lord. ...

"They and all that appertained to them, went down alive into
the pit, and the earth closed upon them : and^they perished ^m
among the congregation.'*

Here is nothing concerning Moses's prophetic office. The
rebellion was against Moses's authority as leader., **Is it a
small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing
with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness, but thou
mud needs make thyself a prince over usV^ (verse 13). And to
this agree Moses's own words : * * Hereby shall ye know that
the Lord haih sent me to do aU these works" (verse 28).

The quotations from Balaam's prophecies are no more de-
cisive of the point at issue.

"And he took up his parable, and said, Balak, the king of Moab^
hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east,
saying. Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel.

" How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall
I defy, whom the Lord hath not defied ? " (Num. xxiii, 7. 8.)

"And Balak said unto Balaam, What hast thou done unto me?
I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed
them altogether.

"And he answered, and said. Must T not take heed, to speak
that which the Lord hath put into my mouth ? " (Num. xxiii,
12, 13.)

"And Balak said unto Balaam, Neither curse them at all, nor
bless them at all. ,

" But Balaam answered, and said unto Balak, Told I not thee>
saying. All that the Lord speaketh, that I must do?" (Num.
xxiii, 25, 26.)

"And Balaam said unto Balak, Spake I not also to thy messen-
gers, which thou sentest unto me, saying,

" If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I can
not go beyond the commandment of the Lord, to do good or bad

KESP0N8E TO THE CHARGES. 249

I

of mine own mind ; but what the Lord sayeth, that will I speak."
(Num. xxiv, 12, 13.)

Here is Biblical inspiration. When God sends a man to
deliver his message, it is in vain for the man to try to change
it. The divine ^afflatus carries him along so that he can not
resist. But this is evidently true only of direct revelations of
God's will. No such inspiration is anywhere intimated con-
cerning the writers of the record. And this passage is the
key to 2 Pet. i, 20, 21 : ** Knowing this first, that no proph-
ecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For
the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man : but
holy men of God spake [or ** men spake from God," R. V.]
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter i, 20, 21.)

The committee need not have confined themselves to the
two versions, for the Greek is even more expressive: ** Men
spake from God being borne along by the Holy Ghost." This
affirmation is identical with Balaam's words concerning him-
self. It describes the Spirit's possession of the organ of reve-
lation. It is besides limited, by explicit declaration, to the
prophetic element in Scripture. The Scriptures are no doubt
mentioned, but it is only as containing the prophecy — **no
prophecy of Scriptures is of private suggestion." There is
nothing about an inspiration of writers, about superintendence
or inerrancy. There is a passage, however, in which Paul
refers to things written, 1 Cor. xix, 37: "If any man think
himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge
that the things that I write unto you are the commandments
of the Lord." The Greek is significant here. Paul' really
aays : ** If any man thinks himself to be a prophet or spir-
itual among you, let him consider the things that I write unto
you, that they are a commandment of the Lord." This lan-
guage limits his claim to the one thing under consideration —

250 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

namely, the regulation of spiritual exercises in the Corinthian
Church. He was confident that on this he had the divine di-
rection. But he does not speak as though he based any claim
on his inspiration, but emphasizes the internal evidence — say-
ing, in effect: ** If any one claiming to be spiritual among
you will examine what I have said, he will recognize in it a
revelation from the Lord." The authority of an Apostle was,
of course, the same to command by letter as to command by
word of mouth. But he does not even appeal to his authority
here, only to the intrinsic reasonableness of what he writes.
And the fact that he emphasizes certain utterances as a com-
mandment of the Lord demanding special attention, shows
that he does not make the same claim for all he writes. In
this very epistle (vii, 40), he gives his judgment in a matter,
and adds, in strange contrast to the passage just quoted: **1
think I have also the Spirit of God." Strange contrast, I say,
because the language is inconceivable, if all* Paul wrote was
given by an inspiration that made it all alike the ** command-
ment of the Lord." These passages, therefore, instead of
proving what the committee is trying to establish, argue just
the other way.

As we might expect, the prophets often speak of receiving
the word of the Lord, and this is described as having the
words put into their mouth. Is. li, 9 ; Jer. i, 9, and ii, 1 :
** I have put my words into thy mouth," or ** the word of the
Lord came unto me." The cases are exactly like the passage
in Exodus already discussed. Only it should be remarked
that Moses, in speaking to Aaron, is described as putting
**the words into his mouth." The texts, therefore, need n#t
mean more than that God spoke to the prophets. So Heb. i,
1 : **God spoke to the fathers in the prophets." The same
epistle also quotes Old Testament texts as "spoken by the
Holy Ghost."

BESPONS£ TC THE CHARGES. 251

"Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart.'*
(Psa. xcv. 7, 8.)

" Wherefore, even as the Holy Ghost saith. To-day, if ye will
hear his voice, harden not your hearts." (Heb. iii, 7, 8.)

" But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel ; After those days, saith the Lord, I Will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." (Jer. xxxi, 33.)

"And the Holy Ghost also beareth witness to us : for after he
Lath said,

" This is the covenant that I will make with them after those
days, saith the Lord I will put my law on their hearts, and upon
their mind also will I write them." (Heb. x, 15, 16, R. V.)

But you will notice that this speaking of the Holy Ghost
is affirmed not of the Old Testament as a whole, but of two
passages which are direct revelations from God to his people ;
one a threat, the other a promise. Now that the Holy Spirit
not only spoke in the prophets, but that He still speaks to us
in their recorded words, is our common faith. ► I know of no
Christian who denies it. I • myself affirm it most decidedly.
But the question before us is a different one, namely : whether
the Holy Spirit so controlled the writers of the Scriptures as
to make their every utterance, whether distinctly revealed or
not, ** absolutely truthful, i, e., free from error when inter-
preted in its natural and intended sense." To prove that this
is the teaching of the Scriptures themselves we have not had
& single text. Let me add the following, which are no more
conclusive :

" The spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my
tongue." (2Sam. xxiii, 2.)

" Thou art God, who by the mouth of thy servant David hast
«aid, Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain
things?" (Acts iv, 24, 25.)

" Which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets,
since the world began." (Acts iii, 21.)

252 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

" Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been ful-
filled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.''

(Actsi, 16.)

That David received the word of God by revelation, that
he spoke a prophecy by the Holy Spirit, that God spoke by
the mouth of David or of the prophets ; all this adds no light
to what we already know. For we now see the analogy of
faith, and are able to weigh the exact force of these texts.

(/) A considerable number of texts among those quoted
by the committee aflSrm the fidfiUnient of prophecy — ^another
point not called in question.

"And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded
unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke
xxiv, 27.)

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake
unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be ful-
filled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Proph-
ets, and in the Psalms concerning me.

" Then he opened their understanding, that they might under-
stand the Scriptures." (Luke xxiv, 44, 45.)

Now, why did not the committee add what follows without
a break ? " and said to them : thus it is written that ihe Christ
should suffer and rise the third day from the dead, and that
repentance unto remission of sins should be preached in his
name unto all the nations.** This verse is important, because
it tells us whxit things in all the Scriptures he expounded to
the disciples. The utmost that we can conclude from the
passage is that the Law, Prophets and Psalms (for the refer-
ence is evidently to the threefold division of the Old Testa-
ment) contain prophecies of the sufferings and resurrection of
Christ and of the universal preaching of the Gospel. Now,

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 253

I ask : who has denied it ? Is the time of this body to be
taken up and the whole judicial machinery of the church to
be put in motion that we should argue points on which we
are all agreed?

Under this same head, of the fulfillment of the prophecy we
may arrange the following :

" Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet [or " spoken by the Lord
through the prophets," R. V.] (Matt, i, 22.)

" Ttey said, therefore, among themselves. Let us not rend it,
but cast lots for it, whose it shall be : that the Scripture might be
fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and
for my vesture they did cast lots. These things, therefore, the sol-
diers did." (John xix, 24.)

" For these things were done, that the Scripture should be ful-
filled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

"And again another Scripture saith. They shall look on him
whom they pierced." John xix, 36, 37.)

" While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy
name : those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them
is lost, but the son of perdition ; that the Scripture might be ful-
filled." (John, xvii, 12.)

" Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched
diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto
you:

" Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ
which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter
i, 10, 11.)

These call for no remark. The following differs from
them only in asserting that Moses wrote some prophecies of
Christ :

** For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me : for
he wrote of me.

254 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

*' But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my
words ?" (John v, 46, 47.)

Jesus also claims that his own prophecy shall be fulfilled :
" Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away." (Matt, xxiv, 35.) The immediate reference i»
to the prophecy of the end of the world. Add to these Matt.
V, 17, 18: ** Think not that I am come to destroy the law»
or the prophets : I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled." The fulfillmerU here spoken of must be the ful-
fillment of prophecy. It is clear that our Lord is describing
the relation of the New Dispensation to the Old. This relation
is one of fulfillment, and so complete is to be this fulfillment
that no single minute particular shall be an exception. But
it means no minute particulars of prophecy not of the Script-
ures as a whole. If the verse has reference to a verbal ("or
rather literal) inerrancy, it must affirm the absolutely correct
transmission of the text. It was used by some in the seven-
teenth century as an argument against textual criticism.

(g) The committee have given us a group of passages bear-
ing on Specification 10. The fact common to them all is that
they cite under Isaiah verses which I suppose to have been
written by another prophet. The argument here is that no
portion of a book cited under Isaiah's name in the New Tes-
tament can have been written by any one but that author.
This is a question of usage. It is conceivable that thiB New
Testament writers quote by the known title of a work, with-
out thereby affirming actual authorship. The Psalms, for ex-
ample, are commonly called the Psalms of David, though
evidently not all written by him. Those by David are so
designated in the Hebrew text. Should the New Testament

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 25o

quote as David's one of those not so designated, are we obliged
to infer that that particular Psalm was written by him?
Psalm xcv is once so quoted (Heb. iv, 7) ; but the Hebrew
text gives no author's name, and some of the best commenta-
tors do not believe it to be by David — Calvin and Alexander
may be mentioned. Many authorities suppose a similar use
of language in Matt, xxvii, 9. Here the author seems to at-
tribute to Jeremiah a verse actually found in the prophecies
of Zechariah. The only way in which we can avoid attribut-
ing a mistake to the Evangelist is to suppose that he quoted
from a roll of the Prophets in which Jeremiah came first.
He therefore called the whole collection ** Jeremiah," and
cited Zechariah's prophecy under this name. The most
strenuous advocates of inerrancy accept this explanation.
On their own theory the citation under the name of Jeremiah
does not prove any thing concerning the real author. Now
the purpose of the New Testament writers by their reference
to Isaiah is to enable their readers to identify the passage.
The only way to do this is to name the book by its qurrent
title. When I quote from Shakespeare and give his name
my aim is to point out the book in which the quotation is
found. 8uch a reference does not contain an affirmation that
the passage in question may not possibly be by some other
poet. The inference from the allusions in the New Testa-
ment can not be pressed beyond the intention of the author,
even on the committee's own principles.

Thus far we have sought in vain for proof of the position
of the committee amongst the texts adduced in its suppbrt.
We have found that several have no bearing on the subject
even of revelation. A considerable number affirm the reality
of a revelation, another large number assert the fulfillment
of prophecy. A few, when examined, promise guidance to
the preacher of the word, and another group makes the

i

256 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

preached word efficacious in the salvation of souls. Not one
of the many passages examined refers to the Scripture as
Scripture. They refer (if to aiiy part of it) to God's revela-
tion therein contained. They prove only the doctrine com-
mon to us all, and not one even implies that the writers of
the Books were so controlled as to render ** their utterances
absolutely truthful, i, e., free from error when interpreted in
their natural and intended sense."

I have left myself a few passages which seem more distinct
than any yet examined. Two of them throw light on the
New Testament use of the Old :

" Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing
the Scriptures, nor the power of God.

** I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God
of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
(Matt, xxii, 29, 32.)

** Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He
saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one. And to thy
seed, which is Christ." (Gal. ill, 16.)

Now, I will not dwell upon the difficulties of these texts
when compared ^ith the Hebrew originals, which make them
the despair of the inerrancist. All we need note is, that mi-
nutely as they argue from the Old Testament letter, they both
argue on a direct word from God Himself. For it is clear
that both the passages quoted are revelations. The two cita-
tions, therefore, add nothing to the force of those' we have
already discussed, nor do they go beyond them in affirming
any thing of the Scripture as Scripture. Look next at the
following :

" Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye
are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the Scriptures can not be broken ; say ye of him, whom.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 257

the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blas-
phemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John x,
34-36.)

The first thing we notice in this passage is that our Lord
bases his argument on a direct word of God Himself. But
he seems to make a more definite affirmation in that he dis-
tinctly mentions the Scripture, and does not specify the Word
of God or the Word of Prophecy. But what is it that he
affirms of Scripture? That **it can not be broken.*^ The
word is, literally, loosedy and is used elsewhere of command-
ments. It has reference to authority, not to veracity and in-
errancy. It would have been entirely irrelevant for Christ to
say : ** God Himself calls the Old Testament judges Gods, and
we can not doubt this, because every assertion of the Scripture
is absolutely true." What he really says is: ** God Himself
calls the Old Testament judges Gods, Now, the Scripture, as
we all admit, is authoritative; what it records of God here is an
example for us. Therefore, you Pharisees can not object to
my using similar language of him whom the Father hath
called.*' Only thus is the argument of force, and we see from
it only what is so plentifully illustrated elsewhere, that our
Lord emphasizes the Old Testament as a rule of faith and
life, at least for the Jews, for he says, your law. And it is evi-
dent that he uses the argument for confuting his adversaries.
It would be entirely legitimate to regard it as an argumentum
ad hominem simply. But you will notice I have not so used
it, but have given its full force. Certainly, no Kenotist the-
ory is necessary in dealing with it, nor have I ever seen it
advanced in favor of that theory. And if this passage does
not contain what we seek, no more does James iv, 5 :

((

Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain [or ** think ye that
17

258 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

the Scripture speaketh in vain?" R. V.]. The spirit -that dwell-
eth in us lusteth to envy?"

I will not dwell on the difficulty of this passage to the ad-
vocate of an inspiration without error. For it can hardly be
denied that James here gives us a Scripture quotation which
we seek in vain in our Old Testament. The R. V. renders
against Greek usage apparently to avoid the difficulty. But
aside from this, the passage says nothing about inerrancy.
In vain is not the same as inaccurately, but is here equivalent
to unprofitably. What James asks is : do you not suppose the
Scripture has a purpose in speaking ?

Now at last we seem to have reached something, for the
two texts we have left certainly bear on their face a reference
to the Scriptures. One of them from the Old Testament
gives us some insight into the making of an Old Testament
book. It is Jer. xxxvi, 1-6. And in the first place the
comnlittee has garbled the passage. By omitting the third,
fourth, and fifth verses they make it appear that God com-
mands Jeremiah to read in the roll which he (Jeremiah) has
written from God's mouth. In fact, it is Jeremiah v^rho
commands Baruch to read what he has written from Jere-
miah's mouth. Let me read the , whole passage: **And it
came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah
King of Judah that this word came unto Jeremiah from
Jehovah, sajing : take thee a book-roll and write in it all the
words which I have spoken unto thee concerning Israel and
concerning Judah and concerning all the nations, from the
day I spoke unto thee, from the days#of Josiah and unto
this day. Perchance the house of Judah may hear all the
evil which I am purposing to do them ; that they may re-
turn each from his evil way and I may forgive their guilt
and their sin. Then Jeremiah caUed Baruch son of Neriah

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 259

and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words
of Jehovah which he spoke to him in the roll of the book.
Then Jeremiah commanded Baruch saying : I am restrained,
I can not go to the house of Jehovah ; But ^u shalt go
and read in the roll which thou hast written from my mouth,
the words of Jehovah in the ears of the people in the house
of Jehovah on the fast day.** Now, here is the way of ed-
iting Jeremiah's book. Jeremiah is commanded to write
down his prophecies. He calls his friend Baruch, and dic-
tates them, and Baruch writes ** from the mouth of Jeremiah
all the words of the Lord which he (Jeremiah evidently) had
spoken to him." Now, where was the inspiration ? Evidently
in Jeremiah. But Baruch was the scribe, and we are look-
ing for the inspiration of fhe scribe. ' Had it been the mind
of God to make it a doctrine of our religion, is it conceiv-
able that he would not in this, the only passage wbich de-
scribes the origin of an Old Testament book, have told us
plainly that Baruch was assisted by such a superintendence
that he made no mistake in writing down the words of Jere-
miah ? I can not think it. As it happens we have an early
textual error in the twenty-seventh chapter of Jeremiah,
where for Jehoiakim we should read Zedekiah, I see nothing
absurd in supposing Baruch to be responsible for that very
mistake. But Baruch's copy was certainly as near the orig-
inal autograph as we can get. This copy (or rather another
copy for this was burned) the disciple afterward enlarged, it
would seem, by adding later prophecies, and published after
his master's death. Have we any evidence that he was su-
pernaturally preserved from error in the later work any more
than the earlier? Certainly not. And what is true of Jere-
miah is true of the other books of the Old Testament. In
the silence of the Word of God itself I think it the part of
wisdom and modesty not to make any assertions. Not that

260 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

I blame those who find the theory of inerrancy a logical
necessity. Only when they insist upon it as the criterion of
confessional soundness, and proceed to make it a test of
ministerial fitness — then I think we should prove all things.

But you will have discovered that I have not yet touched
upon one text, the most important of all. And I recognize
that one clear affirmation of Scripture is enough to form a
basis for doctrinal certainty — though the consent of Scripture
is so great that I doubt if ajij fundamental doctrine is attested
by only a single text. The passage on which the current use
of the word inspiration is based is 2 Tim. iii, 16. The fact
that current usage is based on it, is possibly an obstacle to
our correct understanding of it. For, when a word has been
adopted by us in a particular sense, we too easily read that
sense into it whenever we meet it. The tendency of system-
atic theology is like that of every other science — to affix to
each word< its exact technical usage. Theological usage thus
tends to became more precise than Biblical usage. This
word inspiration is an example. It occurs in two passages hi
the authorized Version. In the Old Testament, it represents
a Hebrew word more correctly rendered by the Be vised Ver-
sion breath (Job xxxii, 8) :

" But there is a spirit in man,
And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding."

You will recognize the idea as the same we find in the sec-
ond chapter of Genesis, where God breathes into man the
breath of life. This activity of the Spirit of God is nowhere
connected with the writing of a book — certainly not in the
Old Testament. But it is prominent in connection with the
prophetic work of receiving a revelation. Old Testament in-
spiration is the inspiration of the prophet, not of the scribe.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 261

As I have said, the word occurs in the New Testament but
once, and, with these facts before us, we can approach the
passage without dogmatic prepossessions.

But, why did not the committee favor us here with the Re-
vised Version, at least along with • the Authorized Version ?
For this is a case where our dependence is reduced to a single
text out of nearly a hundred, and if the Hebrew and Greek
texts are authentical, it is especially incumbent upon us in a
case of so much importance to get as near these originals as
possible. And the difference between the two indicates that
there is some obscurity in the original. The consensus ot
scholars, however, is on the side of the Revisers, whose known
conservatism makes it pretty certain that they would not have
changed the rendering without good reason. They are favored,
moreover, by such conservative scholars as Ellicott. The
Revised Version now gives : * * Every Scripture inspired of
God is also profitable for teaching, etc." And before we un-
derstand the text so translated we must inquire for the mean-
ing of the Greek word translated inspired of Ood. For in
the Greek, as probably the most of you know, they are rep-
resented by one word — ee6irvev<jTog: Unfortunately this word
is not found anywhere else in the New Testament, and is rare
in other Greek writers. So the word on which our whole
fundamental doctrine hangs must remain obscure simply be-
cause usage is not sufficient to establish its meaning. That
it means Ood-breathed we may see at a glance from its com-
position. But as we have seen, many things are God-breathed
in the Bible. It may mean * * endued with life," for life is the
result of the breath of God. It may mean breathing (mi the Di-
vine, redolent (as I might say) of the Divine. But one thing is
tolerably certain, that the word is intended to describe a quality,
not the origin of Scripture. It is similar to our own usage
where we speak of an orator as inspired. Now the Scriptures

262 RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

possess this quality, they are full of deity, they communicate
to us something of God. So far, then, from this being a defi-
nite doctrinal statement concerning what we call inspiration,
** the essence of which is superintendence," it is a panegyric
of the saving and enlightening power of the Scriptures, which
is due to their containing a revelation of God, and not to any
supposed historical or scientific inerrancy whatever. Its near-
est parallel is the declaration of another New Testament
writer: **The word of God is living and powerful and
sharper than any two-edged sword." Listen to the whole of our
passage, and judge : ** But abide thou in the things thou
hast learned and been persuaded of, knowing of whom thou
didst learn them, and that from a babe thou hast known the
Sacred Writings that are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith in Jesus Christ. Every writing breathing, the
Spirit of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." In-
stead of having here the single dogmatic statement concern-
ing an inspiration that superintends, we have a testimony
in full harmony with the other passages we have studied, con-
cerning the Word of God in Scripture, the rule of faith and
life to the Church the source of salvation and edification to
the individual Christian.

Now, Moderator and Gentlemen of the Presbytery, I have
examined every text quoted by your committee in defense of
their doctrine. I have done it, as I believe, candidly and
with an open mind. For I would rather be convinced of
error than not, if I am in error. The result of the examina-
tion is to show not one text that makes for the doctrine of the
committee as formulated in their charge. It must be plain
to you that, so far from departing from the Confession and
the Scriptures, I am in the fullest harmony both with the
Scriptures and the Confession. It is the committee which is

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES. 263

trying to read into both a theory which is an extracon-
fessional refinement of the theologians. The Roman Catholics
are right in maintiaining that the doctrine of the Church
grows. In every Church there is a tradition. At first, it as-
sumes to explain or harmonize the Scriptures. It grows by
logical and metaphysical refinements on the plain doctrine
which the Church deduces from the Scriptures. It then ar-
rogates something of the authority which belongs of right
first. to the Scriptures, in the second place to the Confession.
This is true in the case before us. The doctrine of inerrancy
is a dogmatic refinement on the statements of the Confession.
I have no quarrel with any who find it a help to their faith or
a logical necessity to their system. But, when it pushes itself
forward as the doctrine of the Confession and of the Script-
ures, when it sits on the bench as judge and dictates terms of
ministerial standing — then is the time to test it by the facts
and declarations of Scripture. For the Protestant Church is
witness that' all doctrine and all theology needs perennially to
be brought back to the fountain head of Scripture. **The
Supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to
be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient
writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are to be exam-
ined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other
but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture." There spoke
Protestantism !

What now does your committee of prosecution propose ?
They propose to set up an unscriptural and extraconfessional
test of doctrine. They propose to set up a doctrinal formula
drawn from a review article about ten years old. They tell
the gtudent of the Bible that his results are in conflict with a
theory of inspiration contained in the Confession (if there at
all) only by a precarious inference, and for which they have
been able to bring not even a single text of Scripture. On

264 RESPONSE TO THE CHABOES.

this unstable basis a minister is to be censured, perhaps de-
posed, and that at a time when the Church is engaged in
revising her Confession, and when this' very presbytery has
proposed amendments that go against the letter of the stand-
ards as they are now received.

Moderator : I ask no charity, no indulgence. The proposi-
tion before us is one of law. Under the solemn responsibility
that rests upon you as judges of a court of Jesus Christ, you
are to decide whether the committee have charged me .with
an offense against the fundamental doctrine of the Church.
The statute book of the Church and her ultimate Code have
been examined. I believe it has been fully shown that the
doctrine alleged by the committee is not found there. On the
ground, therefore, that the second charge is insufficient in legal
effect, I respectfully ask that it be dismissed.

BEFLY AND BEJOINDEB. 265

CHAPTER X,

*

REPLY AND REJOINDER.

The reader will have discovered that the decision hinges
upon the relation of inerrancy to inspiration. The charges
and specifications may have been open to objection in form.
But whether they were faulty in form or not, they did ex-
press the point at issue. One party held to the necessary
connection of inerrancy and inspiration — the other party re-
fused to affirm it. In order to conviction by process, how-
ever, it is necessary to show that the doctrine impugned is
(1) contained in the Confession of Faith ; (2) also clearly
taught in the Scriptures ; and (3) an essential article of the
Scriptural and Confessional system. In order to prove th^e
points, the Committee of Prosecution in their reply laid
stress (first) on the Calvinistic system of doctrine as the
great treasure upon which the Presbyterian Church had fixed
its heart. It was, indeed, in connection with the first charge
that this emphasis was laid. But the principle is the same.
The distinctive principles of the Presbyterian Church were
affirmed to be the especial care of the Church. It is a ques-
tion, however, whether this is the theory of the Church it-
self. The first chapter of the Form of Government lays
down the principle **that truth is in order to goodness, and
the great touchstone of truth is its tendency to promote holi-
ness." One would think the consequence of this principle to
be the emphasizing of those doctrines as essential and neces-
sary which in all communions have had the greatest influence
in developing holiness. The speculative doctrine of iner-

266 REPLY AND REJOINDER.

rancy could have little prominence judged by such a rule,
both because it is speculative and because it has not been
held by many men of large attainments in piety.

The attempt was made by one of the prosecutors to show
the evil results of denying the doctrine of inerrancy. These
were in brief the following :

1. If inspiration does not secure inerrancy, the Bible
must be defective in both the embodied facts and opinions,
because of the infirmity of human memory. Even where
there is perfect honesty, errors are likely to result from im-
perfect memory.

2. Such a record of a revelation would be liable to error
from the author's misapprehension of the revelation which he
had received.

3. Such a record would be marred by unconscious defects
of expression. Nothing is more common than for perfectly
truthful men to utter not merely equivocal statements but
actual misstatements, because the speakers are not masters
of language.

4. If the writings be not inspired, every reader must be
permitted to except to any statement, and accept only those
of which he may approve.

5. In making a choice of the true and the false there is no
definite principle by which one can be guided.

6. Only an inerrant record can have the power to accom-
plish in the human soul the work for which the revelation has
been given. Man is to be subdued, to be made at once Gk)d*8
servant and God's son. Infallible truth and absolute author-
ity alone can produce these necessary results. If the Script-
ures contain mingled truth and error, they can not do more
than develop in man their counterpart; the fruit of the Spirit
which is love, joy, peace, can never be produced.

7. Confusion and perplexity must be perpetual where men

REPLY AND REJOINDER. 267

believe the Bible to be partly human and partly divine. If
one sit at the feet of Jesus ready ta receive and live by every
word which proceeds from the mouth of God, he inherits and
obtains promises, is lifted out of the horrible pit, has a new
song put into his mouth — but only as he thus sits.

8. If we have only a record partially human and partially
divine, our study of it must be in a critical and doubting
spirit, which is the very opposite of faith. Unless we be
content to allow the Bible to judge and control us we will be
led inevitably away from God.

These objections (in connection with which the speaker re-
ferred to Bannerman) can not be said to be conclusive. To
a considerable number of them it is sufficient to reply that it
may have pleased God to give us a record of practical suffi-
ciency rather than of absolute perfection. The answer to the
objections that every reader must be permitted to make his
own selection, and that there is no definite principle to guide
him, is, that by common agreement there is infallibility as
to faith and life, and that the testimony of the Holy Spirit
sufficiently guides the Christian in his study of tfte Word.
In regard to the objection that only an in errant record can
produce results, the answer must be a flat denial. It out-
rages one's sense of Christian honesty to read in Bannerman :
**The faith that finds in the divine truth its encouragement
from the beginning, and its warrant ever afterward, is the
mly faith that will bring a sinner either to reconciliation or to
rest with God ; and that faith can be generated and sustained
in peace by nothing but the infallible word of God made ours
in a way and form that gvxtrantee it against the uncertainties
and' short comings of human thought and speech." I say it
outrages one's sense of honesty because it is a matter of com-
mon observation that many souls are brought to reconciliation
by the preaching of the Gospel. This mode of reasoning

268 REPLY AND REJOINDEB.

^

would deny all power to the preached Word, because it is
mixed with the shortcomings and uncertainties of human
speech. More than this; this line of reasoning would lead
us to adopt the theory of infallible transmission, or else to
confess that the inerrant record having been corrupted has
lost its power to save. Neither alternative can be entertained
for a moment.

I^mX even if it were all true, this line of argument is be-
side the mark. The question in ecclesiastical process is not
whether the denial of a certain doctrine is disastrous to faith
in general. It is the more definite question — whether the
doctrine impugned is actually contained in Confession and
Scripture, and so contained as to show its own fundamental
character. There is a possibility that the Confession has
neglected to state the whole truth of Scripture. In this case
the Confession would need to be amended, but one could not
be convicted of heresy (on the particular point on which it
was defective) until the amendment had been made.

The method by which the prosecution tried to show their
doctrine to be stated in the Confession was by de^iMiiixm, The
word inspiration occurs once in the New Testament, and once
in the Confession. It is nowhere defined in either one. Of
course, if allowed to give one's own definition of the word,
one can find his own doctrine in the passages cited. The
committee followed this course in taking the position that ** in-
spiration gives infallibility, or there is no inspiration." They
quoted from Dr. Charles Hodge the dictum that the Scriptures
can not have divine authority without being infallible in all
they teach. The formal definition given by one member of
the Committee was in substance this : ** Inspiration is a work
of God's free Spirit, whereby he inerranUy reveals supernatural
truth to the souls of men, and assures them of its truth by his
own inward witness, and, moreover, persuades and enables

REPLY AND REJOINDEB. , 269

them inerranily to choose /feu ch material or historic truth as his
wisdom needs in the composition of the Holy Scriptures, and
controls them so that they inerranUy record the whole for the
good of man and the glory of God." To give this modem
and complicated definition of inspiration as in the mind of the
Apostle Paul when he spoke of Scripture as ** God-breathed,"
or in the mind of the Westminster divines when they de-
clared the books of the Bible to be " given by inspiration
of God to be the rule of faith and life," is a clear petitio
prindpii.

This assumption of the point at issue vitiated the prose-
cution's whole case. It was reading into the Scriptural lan-
guage what was needed, in order to get out of it the doctrine
of the Committee. Their exegesis in general suffered from
this fault. The emphasis laid upon such a phrase as it is
turkten so often used in the New Testament, as though it in
itself implied inerrancy is a case in point. A single example
will make this clear. The language of the Chairman of the
Committee is: '* Take your concordances and see the absolute
supremacy of the declaration it is nrrUten. Christ announces
His advent. His mission. His person, His work. His suffer-
ings. His death and resurrection, as predetermined thereby —
because ynritteriy it must be fulfilled. Satan himself, after the
curse pronounced upon him for having persuaded the first
Adam to deny the absolute truthfulness of the words of God,
does not seem to have been willing to repeat the attempt in
his assault upon the Second Adam. It is vrritten is not only
asserted by our Lord as a final authority, but admitted to be
so by the tempter himself. He had found the best method
of assault was to assert the truth and then wrest its meaning.
How any one who will compare the passages in which these
vxyrds occur can doubt that Scripture declares Scripture to be
infallible in all its utterances, I can not see." The reader

270 REPLY AND REJOINDER.

will see the argument. It is that the use of the formula^ it
is mritten, declares the passages of which it is used to be not
only authoritative but inerrant — infallible in all their ut-
terances. Now, turning to the First Epistle to the Cor-
inthians (iii, 19), we read : '* For it is vjriUen^ He that taketh
the wise in their craftiness." The quotation from the Old
Testament is found in Job iv, 13, in a speech of Eliphaz the
Temanite. But the speeches of Eliphaz are not accepted by
the most stringent iuerrancist as ** infallible in all their utter-
ances." Bannerman was quoted with approval by one mem-
ber of the Committee on this very point : "A great part of
book of Job is a report of opinions and sentiments expressed
by his friends, not only without any warrant from God but in
direct opposition to his mind. * Ye have not spoken of Me
the thing that, is right as My servant Job has,' was the re-
buke pronounced by Cod Himself upon the broachers of these
views. They were contrary to His mind and truth and yet
they were committed to writing by His Spirit." We have
the prosecution, then, conceding that the speeches of Eliphaz,
as recorded for us by inspiration, are not guaranteed as infal-
lible. Yet one of these speeches is quotecj by the very
formula which, as the prosecution assert, declares Scripture to
be infallible in all its utterances. The inconsistency is appa-
rent. The phrase it is written is in one case, at least, not an
assertion of infallibility, and of course it can not be made
such an assertion anywhere else.

What further was alleged by the Committee will appear by
a perusal of my rejoinder, which is here given in its main
points. The great mass of Scripture proofs adduced by them
in the indictment they left unused, which I' take as an ac-
knowledgment that my exegesis was correct.

BEJOmDEB TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 271

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

M0DERA.TOR ; — When we adjourned last Thursday* I had
called your attention to the objections against Charge I and
its specifications. So far as I can see the committee have not
answered them and in fact some of them they scarcely noticed.

Let us now look at the objections to Charge III. I objected
to Charge III that it is the same as Charge II and therefore
one or the other should be stricken out. Which one is stricken
out makes little difference. I supposed Charge 11 would be
preferred by the committee as being the one which they had
most distinctly worked out, both in the charge and specifica-
tions, and that therefore they would rather dismiss Charge III.
But they (the committee) reply that the two charges are not
the same. They did not make it clear to us wherein the two
charges differ. One member of the committee argued at length
under Charge II to prove what is the correct doctrine of in-
spiration. The other member argued the same point under
Charge III. The latter gentleman indeed affirmed that Charge
n makes the offense denial of truthfulness to the Biblical
writers, while Charge III makes it the denial of the doctrine
of inspiration. But this is not borne out by the language of

* The committee of prosecution replied as to the sufficiency of
the charges on Wednesday, November 16 and the day following
closing about half an hour before the adjournment on Thursday.
The rejoinder began on that day was continued Monday, Novem-
ber 21. Only those points in it are given which differ from those
already made in the response.

272 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

Charge 11. which distinctly emphasizes the Holy Spirit's control
of the inspired writers. It does not say that I deny truthful-
ness, but that I teach " that the Holy Spirit did not «o control
the inspired writers as to make their utterances absolutely
truthful." Now, this is the very point for which both gentle-
men have argued in their discussion of the doctrine of inspira-
tion. Inspiration is to them the influence which secures
truthfulness. So that when they say I deny truthfulness they
mean I deny their doctrine of pspiration, and when they say
I deny the doctrine of inspiration they mean a doctrine of
inspiration which makes it the source of inerrant statement.
I can not see therefore that there is any difference in the two
charges. The committee wish to state charges so that we can
intelligently plead to them and vote upon them. We can
fairly claim so much of the committee. But if they can not
make us see what the difference is between two charges which
they think different, we can hardly hope to discuss either one
intelligently. Now Mr. Lowe argues the doctrine of inspira-
tion under Charge III. But he does not notice the first objec-
tion to the charge — that it is not definite and spedjlc (Response
p. 12). It specifies an article of faith which I am alleged to
impugn, namely: the doctrine of inspiration. But it alleges
that I impugn this doctrine in the seme in which it is affirmed
in the Confession and the Scriptures. The charge to be definite
should state explicitly what is the sense in which [this doctrine]
is affirmed in the Confession and in the Scriptures — *^which
sense the committee suppose me to deny." To this objection
the committee only reply that "Dr. Smith extracts from the
doctrine of inspiration all that in our view and the view of the
Church it contains." This shows what they meant in the
charge. They meant to charge me with denying **what in
their view the doctrine of inspiration contains." But this does
not help the charge nor answer my objection. For my objeo

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 273

tion was that the committee should state their view in the
charge definitely. Otherwise I do not see how we can plead
to it or vote upon it.

On the ground that the members of the committee are
not themselves agreed therefore as to the meaning of these'
charges and the difference between the two charges, I must
maintain both objections : (1) that Charge III is not definite
and specific ; and (2) that the two charges are the same in
substance. Now look at the next objection (p. 14) : "I object
to the first specification under this charge [Charge III] that
it is insufficient in legal effect because it is founded upon the
committee's inference from the language cited by them."
Now the committee assume that this is a question of evidence
and therefore decline to notice this objection with some other
similar ones. But the committee are wrong. There is no
question of evidence here. It is a universal principle of law
that where an offense is committed by words written, the very
words used must be included in the indictment, and the court*
will pass upon them tuithoid calling vdtnesses at all; and if
prima fa^sie they do not establish the accusation, the case will
be dismissed. For example, if a man sues a newspaper for
libel, he must quote the article or passage of which he com-
plains verbatim. If on examination the court finds that the
words cited do not when fairly interpreted sustain the charge,
the suit is dismissed without calling witnesses at all. The
practice of courts martial bears striking analogy to that of
ecclesiastical courts in that the indictment consists of charges
and specifications. It is imperative in order to a valid in-
dictment in such a court that "written instruments where
they form a part of the gist of the offense charged must be
set out verbatim, or where part only of the written instrument
is included in the offense, that part alone is necessary to

18

27-4 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

be set out; and great care must be taken to set them out
correctly."*

Now, I do not quote this as a precedent having binding force
for us. But it is manifestly according to justice that the same
principle should apply in a trial for heresy. For in this case
also the offense is committed by writing or publishing. And
the prosecution are expressly warned by the General Assembly
that a man can not be convicted of heresy on the supposed
logical consequences of his views. My contention, therefore,
is this : the specifications should have consisted of quotations
from the pamphlet, with allegations of time and place of their
utterance or publication. The specifications under Charges II
and in are all defective in regard to time and place. But I
have not urged this objection as not being material, and I
have no wish to stand on mere technicalities. But the other
objection is more serious. For on the face of them these
specifications are simply the committee's inferences from my
language. Let us look at the one now before us. The speci-
fication reads:

Specification I.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is con-
sistent with the unprofitableness of portions of the sacred writings.
Page 116, cited below.

My objection is, first, that the specification should have
included the citation from p. 116 of the pamphlet. Dr.
McKibbin practically admitted this when he said the commit-
tee did not care to repeat the citations with each specification.
This virtually concedes that they ought to have been so re-,
peated. The reason why they were not so repeated is that it
was less convenient for the writer or printer. Now, on the
committee's own theory, we are engaged in a case which in-

* De Hart on Courts Martial, p. 293.

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 275

volves vital interests for the Church at large, as well as for the
individual under trial. In such a case it is of the utmost
importance that every thing should be so clear and regular
that no. one could mistake the issue. Substantial justice is,
indeed, what we seek, as was intimated by one member of the
committee. But substantial justice, if secured by an irregu-
larity, loses half its force. Suppose I should be acquitted by
a technicality. The committee would lay it upon the techni-
cality and feel that the technicality had become of sudden
importance. Suppose, on the other hand, I should be con-
victed by irregular action of the court. The court itself would
suffer in that case in the eyes both of the Church and of the
world, because apparently willing to take advantage of the
irregularity. A thing is not settled until it is rigkUy settled.
Pardon my digression. I only wish to show you that I do not
stand upon technicalities for the sake of the technicalities.

Let us now construct this specification as it ought to be con-
structed, by putting together the present specification and the
citation which supports it :

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is con-
sistent with the unprofitableness of portions of the sacred writings,
in the following words: "All Scripture is God-inspired — true.
But the remarkable thing is that the text afiirms more than this.
All Scripture is not only God-inspired, but all Scripture is * profit-
able for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which
is in righteousness ; that the man of God may be furnished com-
pletely unto every good work.' This seems to me the hardest part
of it. I find no difiiculty in supposing the list of dukes of Edom
God-inspired, even though in the original autographs it had some
names wrongly placed, but do you make it profitable for instruc-
tion in righteousness? Do you make it profitable to yourself for
completely furnishing yourself to every good work ? If not, you
can not lightly condemn me for not drawing your deduction from
its inspiration."

276 REJOINDEK TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

Now, were the specification so printed, its inconsistency with
itself would be evident at a glance. For it must be clear to
any one examining its two parts that the committee's state-
ment in the first part is an inference from the language cited
in the second part. And it is an unwarranted inference at
that. For as I stated in my response, I make no aflSrmation
of unprofitableness at all.

The remaining objections to this charge are that the Specifi-
cations 2, 3 and 4 are identical with Charge II or its specifica-
tions. To this Dr. McKibbin replies that it is quite legitimate
to prove two charges by the same specification. So it is w?ien
two different crimes are committed at once. A man might be
guilty of lying and slander in one utterance, and in that case
the same utterance would prove both crimes. But the very
point here urged is that the specifications, being identical, are
used to prove the same offense twice over.

We come now to Charge II, and my first objection is that
Specifications 1 and 2 are ambiguous in language. Both as-
sert as the error on which the accusation is based, teaching
that the inspired author of Chronicles is guilty of certain
things. Dr. McKibbin answers that the word means no more
than it does when we say a man was guilty of a misstate-
ment, though this is accounted for by his being misinformed.
Of course, I do not wish to haggle over a word, but if this is
the committee's meaning, it would be a very simple matter to
word the specification differently, and avoid the ambiguity.

And now let me recall the fact that I filed a general objec-
tion to these specifications on the ground ** that they are in_
sufficient in form, in that they do not state the facts relied
upon to sustain the charge," but in every case the committee's
interpretation of the facts. This is evident from their form.
No one of them gives my words as a part of the specification.
If the words used by me, as given in the citations from the

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 277

pamphlet) had been properly embodied in the specification,
the discrepancy between the two parts of the specification
would have been manifest in every case. In the citations
referred to by these two specifications, for example, I have
said nothing about the guUt of the Chronicler. In the cita-
tion on which Specification 3 is based, I have said nothing
about his indorsing material by his authority. Formally,
therefore, all these specifications are defective. In those I
have especially noticed the defect is particularly grave ; that
is, in Specifications 4, 7, 8 and 11. Let me call your atten-
tion again to Specification 7 (p. 18) :

" He t€}acbes that the bistorial unreliability charged by him
upon the inspired historical writers of the Old Testament is
chargeable, though in a less degree, upon the inspired writers of
the New Testament," [should be added] in the words following:
" Only it should be observed that the chances for error in the Old
Testament are much greater than the New Testament. The Old
Testament took form in a cruder state of society, and its books
cover a much greater period of time than is the case in the New
Testament. We should naturally expect greater difiiculties in the
Old Testament. The caution exercised with regard to a priori
theories in regard to the New Testament commends itself with
double force when we come to the Old."

Comparison of the two parts of the specification shows that
the committee*^ statement isronly an inference.

The fourth objection [p. 19] was answered by Dr. McKib-
bin only by an affirmation that the experiences disclosed in
the Psalms are normal experiences. But my first objection is
that the specification does not say that. If that is what the
committee mean, they should say so. But, as I pointed out,
even if that be the meaning of the specification, it is irrele-
vant to the change. Much of what Dr. McKibbin says I
should agree with. But what we want to know now is

278 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

•

whether this specification is relevant to the charge. On that
the committee give no reply, except to say : ** It is for this
that these experiences have been committed to the Word of
God in which we have given to us a truthful account of a proper
experience.** Now all I have said is, the committee mixed up
two things: the truthful account and the proper experience
(i. e., an experience free from moral defect). We easily
separate the two things — as in the case of Jacob. To deny
the one is not to deny the other. Yet the committee wish to
make my denial of one a reason for convicting me of denial
of the other. I say, as I said in my response, the two things
do not go together, and the committee have, in fact, intro-
duced here an entirely new charge in the form of a specifi-
cation.

Up to this point, therefore, I do not see that the committee
have answered a single one of my objections. The most im-
portant one still remains to be discussed. I mean the one on
page 23, of the Response, which I will repeat here :

I object to Charge II as insufficient in legal effect in two respects :

(A) Charge II, although it declares that I have taught contrary to

a fundamental doctrine of the Confession and of the Scriptures,

bringrs no evidence to show that the doctrine alleged by them is

fundamental. (B) Charge II alleges that the doctrine against

which I have taught, is a doctrine which is not contained in the

quotations from the Confession and from Scripture which they

have adduced under the charge ; in other words, the doctrine of

the committee is a doctrine neither of the Scriptures nor of the

Confession. First let me ask your attention in the language of the

charge :

" The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D. D., being a minister
in said Church and a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati,
with teaching, in a pamphlet entitled ' Biblical Scholarship and
Inspiration,' contrary to a fundamental doctrine of the Word of
God and the Confession of Faith, that the Holy Spirit did not so
control the inspired writers in their composition of the Holy

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 279

Scriptures as to make their utterance absolutely truthful, i. e., free
from error when interpreted in their natural and intended sense."

It is plainly the intention of the committee to assert that the
Holy Spirit did so ** control the inspired writers in their composi-
tion of the Holy Scriptures as to make their utterances absolutely
truthful, i. e., free frdm error when interpreted in their natural
and intended sense."

The committee not only affirm this as their view, but affirm
it as a fundamental doctrine of the Confession and of the Scrip-
tures. That one member argues the point under Charge II,
and the other argues it under Charge III, does not concern us
here. Now remember we are not asking about the consensus
of the theologians. The theologians are system makers.
They look at speculative divinity through the eyes of their
philosophy. They may be tempted to make fundamental that
which is logically necessary to their philosophy. And the
tradition of the church is so strong that it is inclined to insist
upon every such doctrine as fundamental. Fortunately, we
have a check on this tendency in the plain declaration of our
Church, that all doctrines of me nare to be tried by the Holy
Scripture. A fundamental doctrine, then, in the sense in
which we now inquire for it, is a doctrine fundamental in
Scripture. Of course, this means that it is abundantly testi-
fied in Scripture itself. For while a single clear affirmation of
truth in Scripture is enough to make us accept it, there is no
instance of a fundamental doctrine being asserted in only one
passage.

It would seem to be self-evident now that a fundamental
doctrine should be capable of clear expression. The commit-
tee complain that my doctrine, as they are pleased to call it,
is not clearly expressed. The only doctrine I have, however,
is the doctrine of the Westminster Assembly, that the Word
of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and

280 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

New Testaments is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
This is certainly clear enough, and it answers the conditions
of a fundamental doctrine because it is abundantly asserted
in the Scriptures and in Ihe Confession. As against this, the
committee assert a doctrine which needs, as we can see, a
complicated and carefully balanced statement. It is in sub-
stance this : The Scriptures not only contain, but are the
Word of God by virtue of their organizing principle which
we call inspiration, and which secured that every statement
of the writers is absolutely truthful when interpreted in ita
natural and intended sense, and when the ipsimma verba of^
the original autographs are ascertained.* Now my first argu-
ment against this being a fundamental doctrine is that >t is-
too complicated. Its wording shows a desire to make allow-
ance for a variety of somewhat conflicting considerations. It
is limited by this desire, not to say hampered by it,^ and the
result does not make the impression of a single and clear-cut
definition, such as are the fundamental doctrines of Presby-
terianism.

But when we come to examme this definition, we discover
that while the members of the committee agree in defending-
it, they do not agree in the method in which the inerrancy is
brought about. Dr. McKibbin begins with the inspiration of
the prophets. This he defines as the inspiration which makes
the prophet God's mouth-piece or spokesman, whether in
speaking or writing. The Scriptures are written by such in-
spired men, and are, therefore, the Word of God. Mr. Lowe,
on the other hand, taking as his starting point 2 Timothy iii,
16, defines the Scriptures as inspired — it was the writings

* Dr. McKibbin claimed at this point that the " original aato-
graphs " are sufficiently designated in the language of the charge,
that " the Holy Spirit so controlled the inspired writers in {heir
composition of the Holy Scriptures."

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 281

which were inspired, not the men. I do not speak of this
difference as invalidating the arguments advanced by these
gentlemen, but as showing we are on the uncertain ground of
speculative theology. The theologians of th« seventeenth
century had an equal right to speculate, and they did it by
analyzing the act of inspiration into three parts : the impukus
scribendif the mggestio rerum and the suggestio verborum. Now,
one of the cautions that we need to take to heart in such an
inquiry as this, is against reading our scholastic theories into
the Scriptures. It was with reference to this that I inquired
about the bearing of certain citations from the systematic
theologians. They might give us their view of what is logi-
cally necessary to a complete system of theology, and yet not
mean to assert that their particular view was asserted in the
Confession or the Scriptures. It would not follow that they
were anti-scriptural or anti-confessional, only that they went
beyond Scripture and Confession in their deductions or infer-
ences. Foij our present inquiry, the testimony of one exeget-
ical scholar is worth more than that of three systematic
theologians. And I do not say this as disparaging the sys-
tematic theologians, I only say it because the inquiry that
most directly concerns us is a distinctly exegetical inquiry.

Now, as to the proof texts brought by the committee, I said
in my response that they prove no more than the points well
established among us and agreed upon ; (1) that a revelation
has been given; (2) that prophecy has been fulfilled; (3)
that our Lord recognizes the reality of revelation, and the
spiritual power of the Old Testament, which contains the reve-
lation ; (4) that the Church has the promise of the guidance
of the Holy Spirit into spiritual truth. So soon as we recog-
nize the fact that the prophets claim inspiration for themselves,
but not for those who tmte, we see that all the affirmations of
the Bible itself are concerned with the revelation of God in

282 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

Scripture, rather than with Scripture as a whole. We found,
at any rate, on examining the citations of the committee, that
where they referred to any thing as spoken by God or the Holy
Ghost it was a distinct revelation, promise or prophecy which
was so described. And the weight of this fact can be better
estimated if we look at another of Dr. McKibbin's statements.
**The inspired ivriters,*' he says, ''identify their irfferances with
God's — their right to speak is that they are commissioned by
God." Now, it is difficult to characterize such a statement as
this without using harsh language. It purports to describe the
inspired writers, that is, the writers of all the books of the Bible.
It then speaks of them as identifying their ittterances with God's,
and says their right to speak is that they are commissioned by
God. There is a palpable confusion here of writers and speak-
ers. Why did not Dr. McKibbin say : the inspired writers
identify their vrritinga with God's — their right to vrrite is that
they are commissioned by God ? The reason is plain enough.
Such a statement would show its falsehood on its face. There
is no instance that I can recall where a writer as distinguished
from a prophet makes such a claim. What is meant is that
the prophets claim to speak as God's spokesmen. jf%ey identify
their utterances with God's. Their right to speak is. that they
are commissioned by God. If any one doubts this let him take
the plainly historical portions of the Old Testament. Let him
make a thorough examination of Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Chronicles, Esther and Nehemiah. He will find not
one single instance, I venture to say, in which the writer
clearly claims even to be God's spokesman. Much less will he
find one where he identifies his utterances with God's utter-
ances. In the books of the prophets we find such expressions
in abundance, because the prophet was God's spokesman. He
did identify his utterances with God's, and he had a right to.
But in the historical portions even of the prophetical books the

REJOINDEB TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 283

writer carefully refrains from making such claims. For ex-
ample, the history of Hezekiah's sickness and recovery in the
book of Isaiah (xxxvi-xxxix) or the concluding section of
Jeremiah (lii) are as free from any claims of this kind as are
the books of Kings, and the same is true of the historical sec-
tions of the Pentateuch. The discovery of this fact is fatal to
the theory. For it is inconceivable that the Old Testament
writers, if all alike conscious of being God's spokesmen or
amanuenses (as we should more properly say) should observe
this careful reticence. Now, Dr. McKibbin adds that the
writers of the Old Testament books are all believed to be
prophets. So they are by some people. But the belief is
apparently no older than the fourth century of our era. We
find it in the Talmud, where it is in such a shape that we can
not accept all its statements, as that Adam was the author of
one of the Psalms. It is not found in the New Testament,
except that one of the divisions of the Old Testament is called
the Prophets, which, of course, proves nothing. In fact, it is
pure conjecture, and is disproved by the fact I have just men-
tioned, that where we can distinguish the writer from the
speaker the latter claims the divine inspiration, the former
never does. And there is another significant fact here. If
the writers had the same sort of inspiration with the prophets
why should it never be said **God wrote" or, **as the Holy
Spirit hath written?" For it must be clear to you that these
expressions would be just as appropriate as that ** God spoke'*
or ** as saith the Holy Spirit." Were it true that the writers
had such a commission to write for God as the prophets had to
epeak for him, it would be as proper to say God wrote, or the
Holy Spirit writes, as to use the corresponding expressious.
Why, then, do we never find these phrases, but simply it is
vnitten f There can be no explanation except that the Scrip-
ture was not written under the same kind of inspiration as the

284 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

prophets enjoyed. The sharp distinction between the two is
warranted by the facts.

Now I will not go over all the ground gone over in my Re-
sponse. I see no reason for doubting that my position there
is the correct one. The committee have not condescended to
notice my arguments in detail. Only on one or two passages
they take issue with me. The first is the important passage
in Timothy (see Response, p. 66). Mr. Lowe while preferring
the Authorized Version quotes Gaussen as holding the Revised
Version to be more emphatic. But on that point each one of
us has judgment enough to decide for himself. I will not
quarrel with any. The decisive point is the word SedTrvevarog.
However we may define it, it is true that it occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament and consequently that we have a
fundainental doctrine hanging on one single word — a fact with-
out its parallel among the fundamental doctrines ag I venture
to think. Mr. Lowe however doubts my definition of the word
and seems to think me inconsistent in that I render it God-
breathedy and breathing the Spirit of God. In truth they are
one. That which is saturated with an odor gives forth per-
fume. That which is full of the Spirit of God gives forth a
divine influence, Both meanings are probably contained in
the word. Let me quote Cremer, a good authority — for I would
not have you take my word as decisive. After a discussion of
the few instances in which the word is found outside the New
Testament, he says: *4t can not mean given by inspiration of
God, but must be equivalent to breathing the Spirit of Gody or
partaking of the Spirit of God. For similar forms amfevarocy
evirvevGTog evidently pass from the passive to the active mean-
ing."*

The other passage urged again by Mr. Lowe is John x, 34-

* Worterb d. N. T. Gracitat, mh voce.

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 285

86 (see Response, p. 63) where our Lord says the Scripture
can not be broken. In view of his astonishment ^t my ex-
position I have carefully reviewed it and can not find any thing
obscure or erroneous unless it be that I do not agree with the
committee. What I have said I reaffirm. The passage does
not seem to me to made any reference to the Scriptures as
inerrant or even veracious. They are adduced as authority on
the strength of which Christ justifies his own assumption of
the title ** Son of God." Now if we assume that they can not
be authoritative in this passage without being inerrant in every
passage, the text proves the doctrine of the committee, other-
wise not.

Now let me notice the manner in which the committee prove
their doctrine. They object .to my saying that it is a recent
doctrine. What I say is that the committee ** propose to set
up a doctrinal formula drawn from a review article about ten
years old." To this they object and claim that the doctrine is
much older. Of course it is ; it goes back in its full blown
beauty to the seventeenth century. But the statement in the
charge is nevertheless of comparatively recent origin. I have
not met it in any thing older than the article of Drs. Hodge
and Warfield which is precisely eleven and one-half years old.
Now however much we may honor Messrs Hodge and Warfield
(and I should be the last to speak slightingly of them), it is
doing them too much honor to set up their statement of the
confessional and Biblical doctrine as the doctrine of the Church.
Why does not your committee state their doctrine in the lan-
guage of the Confession itself? Clearly because it is not
expressed there clearly enough to try a heretic by. Therefore
they choose a formula that is more definite than the Confession,
while they claim that it expresses the doctrine of the Con-
fession.

And now let me call your attention to the procedure known

286 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE*S REPLY.

as begging' the questioDS. If you carefully state your premises
so as to affirm the thing you want to prove, you can demon-
strate to a certainty just that thing. This is what your com-
mittee has done. Not having a high opinion of other people's
logic they make skillful use of their own. Dr. McKibbin for
example says the fundamental idea of inspiration is ** such an
influence as made the organ of it God's mouth piece." The
mode and extent to which it has suppressed men's idiosyn-
crasies God has left his Church to determine. ** But as to the
eflfect (that the speaker or writer is God's mouth or spokesman)
this is asserted on almost every page. Therefore it is a doctrine
taught in the Scripture, and therefore it is to be accepted by
every one who accepts the system of doctrine contained in the
Scriptures. God is the author J[of Scripture] and to impugn
this is to impugn God." Inspiration he adds, ** is the organiz-
ing principle which makes Scripture Holy Scripture." Now
we are not questioning the truth of the doctrine. The only
question is whether the doctrine is a doctrine of the Scriptures.
This is easily proved by this method. You have only to define
inspiration in this way and then interpret every text which
refers to the prophet or the word of God by your definition,
and you have done just what you want. But let any one
question the premises and you are gone. Make the clear dis-
tinction between Biblical inspiration of the prophet and theo-
logical inspiration of the scribe, and while you will find one
asserted frequently (though not on every page) you will find
the other faintly and rarely indicated. In this method you
will find less definiteness perhaps but in the long run more
certainty. The other member of the committee gave us a
definition which I was not able to get down but which similarly
assumed the very point in dispute. And so by asserting
plenary inspiration to be the doctrine of our Church, and
then giving us Webster's definition of plenary inspiration he

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE*S REPLY. 287

established his position. But the question in dispute is not as
to the consensus of the theologians or the declarations of the
General Assembly. For neither one has a right to define
doctrine for the Church. The doctrine of the Church is con-
tained in the Confession and the Scriptures.

Now your committee have argued at some length for the
fundamental character of their doctrine on the ground that it
has always been the doctrine of the Church. At the same
time they seem to admit that it has not been the formulated
doctrine of the Church, because it has never been questioned.
** Had there been no heresies, there had been no qreeds.'*
Now, on this basis, what is the duty of the committee?
Plainly, not to prosecute me, but first to amend the creed.
For here, on their own confession, is a new heresy, to meet
which we have no distinctly formulated creed statement. At
a favorable time when the Church is revising her Confession,
it would seem the plain duty of every one who opposes ''a
great system of errancy," or who wishes even to get a single
errorist out of the Church, it would seem to be the duty of
such a one (I say) to overture an amendment to the Confes-
sion embodying the words of the Charge ; then we should
know where we stand. The more I think of this, the more I
am surprised that it has not been done.

But it would seem to be difficult for the committee to prove
both their assertions — that the doctrine has never been ques-
tioned, and yet that it is the doctrine of the Church. For as
they themselves assert, formulas of doctrine are the result of
heresies. This heresy they think so recent that it has not yet
given rise to the opposite creed statement. And it is, to say
the least, difficult to convict one of having denied a funda-
mental doctrine when that doctrine has not yet been defined.

Before we can decide on the force of the committee's argu-
ment, therefore, we must look a little at the history of the

288 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

f

Church. And here it strikes us at once that the committee
are rather sweeping in their generalizations. They claim for
their view of inspiration Esdras, Josephus, Philo, the fathers,
and every one else down to the Keformation of the Church.
Let us look a little into this list. The apocryphal book
of (IV) Esdras, to which, I suppose, the first reference is
made, represents the Holy Scriptures as lost in the captivity.
Ezra receives command to restore them, and in a trance he
dictates them to five scribes, not resting for forty days or
nights. He dictates not only the canonical books of the Old
Testament, but seventy books of secret wisdom to be kept for
the initiated. The whole story is invented to give circulation
to apocryphal books, and bears the mark of falsehood on its
face. Its extravagances discredit its advocacy of any theory.
Philo no doubt had a high theory of inspiration. He believes
all the Old Testament writers to have been prophets. But
his conception of prophecy is more Greek than Hebrew. It
makes the prophets inspired in the sense of the pythoness of
Apollo. They speak higher mysteries in a state of trance.
But with this high doctrine is a theory of exposition that
deprives the Scriptures of all its truth. For, as is well known,
Philo is the father of the allegorical method. Every sentence
of Scripture was to him true in the higher serisey But this is
against the committee which assert the inspired writer's utter-
ances to be truthful when interpreted in their natural sense.
This is largely true of the fathers. The Apostolic fathers all
believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, but not one says
any thing on the subject more than I could say — that is, not
one can be quoted in favor of the distinctive view of the com-
mittee. Hippolytus emphasizes the truth of revelation and
of prophecy and says: **The prophets announce the father's
counsel and will," but says nothing about the accuracy of
those parts of the Bible which are not directly revealed.

REJOINDER TO THE COMIHITTEE'S REPLY. 289

CypriaD likewise says much of inspiration, but nothing dis-
tinctly in favor of the committee's view as opposed to that
which I hold. The only way in which these men can be used
against me is to assume that every time the word inspiration
is used, it means inspiration in the sense of the committee's
definition But this is sheer assumption. Justin Martyr,
however, asserts plenary and even verbal inspiration, and
thus is the first of the fathers to give utterance to the com-«
mittee's view. But Justin (like Philo) finds types and alle-
gories everywhere, and regards every passage of Scripture as
teaching doctrine and morals. In this the committee are
probably hardly ready to follow him. . Athenagoras goes so
far as to assert that the Scripture writers were unconscious in
writing. He therefore holds the mantic theory, which we
have seen to be of Greek origin. With him agree Montanus
and the Montanists, including TertuHian. But this view,
though widespread, was rejected by many fathers, and finally
declared false by the Church. Irenseus is the first to hold
nearly the view of the committee, for he asserts that every-
thing recorded in the Scriptures is correct, though he does
not try to allegorize every thing. An anonymous writer in
Eusebius, writing about 230 a. d., holds so high a view of
inspiration that he condemns text criticism as a sin, so that
we have in him an advocate of the view of the committee,
but without recourse to the original autograph, Clement and
Origen likewise accept the high theory of inspiration, but they
allegorize every thing, and the latter (the greatest scholar of
the early Church) says distinctly that the literal sense is not
true, and, therefore, we must seek the allegorical (or spiritual
sense) to avoid contradiction. Thus, he harmonizes the theory
of inspiration with the existence of discrepancies which he
can not deny. The same method is pursued by Augustine,
who tells us that he was able to accept the Old Testament
19

290 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

only after its literal discrepancies had been explained by Am-
brose in the allegorical method (Conf. v, 14; vi, 4). The
general rule for determining when a passage is to be taken al-
legorically, is stated (Christian Doctrine III, 10) : Whatever
there is in the Word of God that can not, when taken literally^
be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine,
you may set down as figurative (t. e. , as is clear from the con-
text, all matter which is not directly religious or ethical, as
dates, chronological tables, scientific statements). The same
father elsewhere distinguishes the significant parts of Scrip-
ture from the non-significant. Some things are narrated
which have no significance, but are, as it were, the frame-
work to which the significant things are attached. As to the
truth of these non-significant things, he never expresses him-
self.

Some of the fathers, however, expressly admit errors in
circumstantials, as the golden-mouthed preacher of Constanti-
nople, Chrysostom. In his Homily on Matt, i, 6, he ex-
pressly says the minor errors in the Gospels are useful as
showing there is no collusion in the writers. Admitting thpse
minor discrepancies, he then goes on to show harmony
in matters of faith. Jerome once says that Paul speaks
under the impulse of his own temper rather than of the Holy
Spirit (on Gal. v, 12).

During the Middle Age, both the freer and the stricter
view were held, but the latter prevailed along vdth the aUegcyri-
cal method of exposition^ and along with the view of the inspir-
ation of the Church, which is announced by the Council of
Trent. This decree, which is still the doctrine of the Boman
Catholic Church, is deserving of attention, because it has
been urged by the committee as a part of that consensus of
the universal Church, which they claim for their side. It is
as follows:

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 291

"The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of
Trent, lawfully assembled in the lioly Ghost, the same three
legates of the Holy See presiding therein, keeping this always in
view, that errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel
be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel) before promised
through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God first promulgated with his own mouth and
then commanded to be preached by his Apostles to every creature
as the fountain of all both saving truth and moral discipline, and
seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the
written hooks and unwritten traditixmSy which, received by the Apos-
tles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the Apostles them-
selves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even to us,
transmitted as it were from hand to hand ; [the Synod] following
the example of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with an *
equal affection of piety and reverence^ all the books of the Old and of the
New Testament, seeing that one God is the author of both, as also
the said traditions [of the Church] as well those appertaining to
faith as to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ's own
word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the
Catholic Church by a continuous succession." [Follows a list of
the books of the Canon including the Apocrypha.]

Now, if any one wants to claim this as favoring the com-
mittee's view, he must be prepared to make the following
admissions : (1) This view does not assert an inerrant in-
spiration of the Bible, but of the Church, The Bible is
received only as a part of the tradition of the Church, (2)
Whatever this view affirms of the Bible it affirms of the
Apocrypha. (3) This view alleges the authority of the
fathers as a part of the inerrant tradition. (4) This affirma-
tion, so far as it asserts inerrancy, does it for the Vulgate
Version, and does it for this version, not because given by
inspired men, but because it is indorsed and authenticated by
the Church. (5) As we very well know, this view goes hand
in hand with an allegorizing exposition, which while seeking

292 REJOIKDEB TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

mystical truths behind the letter of Scripture, really de-
prives the letter of all its meaning. If with these reserva-
tions the committee finds enough sound doctrine left to count
on their side, I shall not object. Buit it surely is something
new to urge this sort of authority for Presbyterian doctrine.

The fact is the Church did not understand her Bible (es-
pecially the Old Testament) until the Reformation. So that
for any thing like a doctrine on the origin of the Bible or
the mode of inspiration, we must begin with the Reformation.
And here the committee make large claims. First they say
the consensus of the Protestant creeds is on their side. The
only one they were able to cite, however, was the Second
Helvetic Confession. However highly honored this may
have been, it is rather a narrow basis on which to found a
consensus. The fact is that the great majority of Protestant
creeds content themselves with affirming the sufficiency of
Scripture as a rule of faith and life, and ignore the distinctive
doctrine of the committee.

The Augsburg Confession, the mother of the Protestant
creeds has no article on Scripture. It only says that the min-
istry of teaching the Gospel was instituted for the obtaining of
faith (Art. V). The Apobgia Gonfessionis is more specific, in
that it says : ** The whole Scripture is distributed principally
into the two heads, Law and Gospel." And again : *' Into these
two heads is distributed the whole Scripture. One part is the Law
which discovers, reproves and condemns sin ; the other part
is the Gospel, that is, the promise of grace given in Christ. **
Now this is the earliest Protestant affirmation on the subject.
It gave tone to much that followed, and it is exactly in line
with what I claim for the Westminster Confession, for it
takes the spiritual side of the Bible and characterizes it as
Law and Gospel. It seems to recognize nothing else in Scrip-
ture. But this can not be made exhavMive by any ingenuity.

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 293

Will committee affirm that every statement in ^ the Scrip-
ture is either Law or Gospel t Of course they can not affirm
this ; and if not this, they can not claim these creed expres-
sions on their side. On the Reformed side we notice a more
distinct formulation of the doctrine of Scripture, as for
example in the Helvetic Confession. This declares ** Canon-
ical Scripture, the Word of God, delivered by the Holy
Spirit and set forth by the prophets and Apostles, the most
perfect and most ancient philosophia, alone contains what per-
tains to the knowledge, love and honor of God and to piety of
life." And later: ** The object of this Canonical Scripture is
that man may know that God is gracious to him and has
declared his good will through Christ his Son. This grace
comes to us through faith alone, and is expressed in love to
our neighbor." This is evidently in line with the creeds
already examined, and can not be made to assert the dis-
tinctive doctrine of your committee.

The Second Helvetic Confession is still more elaborate in
its chapter on Scripture, and is claimed by the committee on
their side, though I do not think this established by a fair
interpretation. Next comes the Heidelberg Catechism, per-
haps the most influential among the Reformed Confessions.
The only affirmation this creed contains on the subject of
Scripture is the following :

" Question 19. Whence knowest thou this ? [i. e. that Christ is
our Mediator].

Answer. From the Holy Gospel, which God himself first re-
vealed in Paradise, afterwards proclaimed by the holy Patriarchs
and Prophets, and foreshadowed by the sacrifices and other cere-
monies of the law, and finally fulfilled by his well-beloved Son."

Now, that is the only affirmation concerning Scripture con-
tained in the most prominent of the Reformed Confessions. It

294 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

says nothing of the Bible as a whole, nothing of inspiration,
nothing of inerrancy. And yet the committee claim that the
whole Church has always held their view. So far as the creeds
go we may arrest our examination here. One out of five among
the Protestant creeds is hardly enough to establish the con-
sensus of the whole Church.

But the committee say, further, that all prominent and godly
men in tjie Church have always held their view, and they
quote severe words about Dr. Vincent from a reviewer, who •
asserts the same thing. Let us look at this a little. And first
about Luther, the man who recovered the Bible for us. If
there ever was a man who had a strong Evangelical faith and
the power of the Spirit it was Luther. But it is notorious that'
Luther did not hold the doctrine of an errorless Bible. I did
not suppose I should ever see a man with the hardihood
to affirm that he did. It is inconceivable that he should use
the expressions he does, holding that view. Suppose a mem-
ber of this Presbytery were to say he hated the book of Esther
because it judaizes so. Would you suppose him to hold a view
of inspiration that makes every word in the Scripture the word
of God himself? Or would this committee adopt Luther's
word about one of Paul's arguments in the Epistle to the Gala-
tians — that it i^ too weak to hold t Or the affirmation which I
have quoted in the pamphlet that the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews has mixed some wood, hay or stubble with his
gold, silver and precious stones — would the committee regard
this as consistent with their doctrine ? Or again, would they
like to adopt Luther's expression that the Epistle of James is
* * a regular epistle of straw ?" And yet Luther continually calls
Scripture the Word of God, prizes it as the Word of God, and
draws his comfort, as well as his doctrine, therefrom. No one
shows more clearly the ability to value and appropriate the

«

KEJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 295

Word of God in Scripture, without adopting theories of iner-
rancy as to Scripture as a whole.

And now as to Calvin, let me quote what my beloved and now
sainted friend, Dr. Evans, says: ** Calvin himself, referring
to the deviation of the Seventy, as cited in Heb. xi, 21, from
the Massoretic Hebrew text, says of the apostolic use of the
Old Testament : ' * The apostle does not hesitate to accommo-
date to his own purpose (non-dvhitat mo instituto accommO'
dare) what was commonly received. He wrote, indeed, to the
Jews : but to those who, being dispersed through various coun-
tries, had exchanged their national language for Greek. We
know that in such a matter the apostles were not very scru-
pulous (non adeo fume acrupvlosos) by which, of course,
Calvin means that they were not careful about exactitude in
all matters of detail. ** In the thing itself," he adds, ** there is
but little difference."

So rationalistic, indeed, did Calvin's treatment of the Old
Testament seem to the more orthodox Lutherans of his day,
that they charged him with judaizing. One of them calls him
Calvinus Judaizans. (Aeg. Hunnius, Vit. 1593.) Another
accuses him of interpreting the passages al^ut the Messiah and
the Trinity in the sense of the Jews and the Socinians (see
reff. in Eeuss, Hist, of the N. T., §550). To the phrase
Iva tz'knpddij in connection with O. T. citations, he gave so
elastic an interpretation that this, too, was denounced as
rationalistic. (See Tholuck on Calvin as an Interpreter, Bibl.
Bepos. II, p. 541 ff.) He recognizes an occasional inaccuracy
in the text. On Matt, xxvii, 9, he say3 : ** The passage itself
plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down
by mistake instead of Zechariah." He is at least not anxious
to trace it back to the original autograph. ** How the name
of Jeremiah crept in," he says, ** I do not know, nor do I give
myself much trouble to inquire (nee anxie laboro). On Luke

296 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

xxiv, 36 and elsewhere he recognizes contradictions, but uni-
formly dismisses them as of no importance, leaving, as they
do, the substance of the narrative unaffected. He doubts the
Pe trine authorship of the Second Epistle, and can not be pre-
vailed upon to acknowledge Paul as the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews* (ego ut Paulum agnoscam audorem cuidud
nequeo). "Only in his very earliest writings," says Beuss
(Hist, of the N. T. §335), *'does he follow tradition."

Mr. Lowe seems to think Calvin refers all these errors to
transcription. But this can not be the case for he would
not have said in that case that the Apostles were not very par-
ticular. Could the committee with their view of inspiration
say any thing like that ?

Among the men of Reformation times, Zwiugli, Bullinger^
Melancthon, and Erasmus are all known to have been as free
(or lax if you will) as Luther and more so than -Calvin. In
the next century the doctrine was more strictly defineaby
some men no doubt. But these men were logical. Instead
of making the guarded affirmations of the committee about a
controlling of the authors of Scripture or an inspiration of
superintendence, they roundly affirmed that every thing
in Scripture was directly revealed even if it was something
already known to the authors by their own observation. They
made the Biblical writers the pens of the Holy Spirit and be-
lieved them to have written without volition of their own.
It was in this century that the doctrine of superintendence was
broached as accounting for the composition of the historical
books. It was brought forward by a Roman Catholic and
promptly condemned by the Protestant theologians, one of
whom declared that it destroyed the foundations of the faith
and took away from us all certitude as to doctrine.

It was in this century that the Arminian controversy raged.
Arminius himself, Episcopius, and Grotius held the freer view.

BEJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 297

I do not mention them as authorities. But I wish to call your
attention to the fact for its bearing on the doctrine of the
Westminster Confession. The Westminster Divines had no lik-
ing for Arminian doctrine. Had they felt that this particular
phase of Arminian doctrine was dangerous they would cer-
tainly have made some provision against it by introducing a
more direct and unmistakable definition into our Confession.
So we have another argument confirmatory of what we have
already said concerning the purpose of the Westminster As-
sembly. And this is in line with what Dr. Mitchell says as I
have quoted him in the Response. Mr. Lowe quotes wkat
Dr. Mitchell says about transmission but ignores the other
point (Response, p. 33).

Now remember we are trying to find out whether the doc-
trine of the committee is fundamental. They claim that it is
fundamental because it has always been the doctrine of the
Church. Certainly what we have now seen does not point
out a universal consent of the Church. Let us look at some
further testimony. If this be a fundamental doctrine we shall
expect to find it held and emphasized by all leading orthodox
divines. But we do not find it so emphasized. Baxter, for
example, though holding the doctrine of inerrancy himself does
not regard it as essential to the divine authority of the Scrip-
tures. [See the quotation in Biblical Scholarship and Inspira-
tion, p. 109]. Note also the following:

Home's Introduction, the leading conservative authority,
quotes the following from Parry :

" Maintaining that the Apostles were under the infallible direc-
tion of the Holy Spirit, as to every reKgrwms sentiment contained in
their writings, secures the same advantages as would result from
supposing that every word and letter was dictated to them by its
influence, without being liable to those objections which might
be made against that view of the subject." . . . "Another

i

298 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

advantage attending the above view of the apostolic inspiration
is, that it will enable ui^ to understand some things in their writings,
which it might be difficult to reconcile with another view of the
subject. If the inspiration and guidance of the Spirit, respecting
the writers of the New Testament extended only to what appears
to be its proper province, matter of a religious or moral nature, then
there is no necessity to ask, whether every thing contained in their
writings were suggested immediately by the Spirit or not, whether
Luke were inspired to say, that the ship in which he sailed with
Paul was wrecked on the island of Melita "(etc.) . . . "for
the answer is obvious : these were not things of a religious nature,
and no inspiration was necessary concerning them. The inspired
writers sometimes mention common occurrences or things in an
incidental manner as any other plain and faithful man might* do.
Although therefore such things may be found in the evangelic
history or in Epistles addressed to churches or individuals, and
may stand connected with important declarations concerning
Christian doctrine or duty, yet it is not necessary to suppose that
they were under any supernatural influence in mentioning such
common or civil affairs, though they were as to all the sentiments
they inculcated respecting religion. This view will also readily
enable a plain Christian in reading his New Testament to distin-
guish what he is to consider as inspired truth. Every thing which
the Apostles have written or taught concerning Christianity;
every thing which teaches him a religious sentiment or a branch
of duty, he must consider as divinely true, as the mind and will
of God recorded under the direction and guidance of his Spirit."

(Parry's "Inquiry into the Nature and Extent of the Inspiration
of the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament,'' pp. 20 and 30,
London 1797).

Bp. Warburton {Doctrine of Grace, p. 278).

" Thus we see the advantages resulting from o. partial inspiratUm
as here contended for and explained. It answers all the ^nds of a
Scripture universally and organically inspired by producing an
unerring rule of faith and manners ; and besides obviates all those
objections to inspiration which arise from the too high notion of it ;
euch as trifling errors in circumstances of small importance ; for

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 299

the least error is inconsistent with organic inspiration, but may
well stand with a virtual and co-operating influence." . . .

" In a word, by admitting no more than this lower kind of inspira-
tion, so warmly contended for (and in terms as vague and indeter-
minate as the Scepticism of the users) by men who were in hopes
that the admission of it would end in no inspiration at all, we
secure and establish the infallible word of Scripture ; and free it
from all those embarrassing circumstances which have been so
artfully and disingenuously thrown out to its discredit."

Paley (in Evidences of Christianity. Bk. Ill, Chap. 2).

" First [it is sufficient] to separate what was the object of the
Apostolic Mission, and declared by them to be so, from what was
extraneous to it, or only incidentally connected with it. Of points
clearly extraneous to the religion nothing need be said.

" Secondly, that in reading the apostolic writings we distinguish
between their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines
came to them by revelation properly so called ; yet in propound-
ing these doctrines in their writings or discourses, they were wont
to illustrate, support, and enforce them, by such analogies
arguments and considerations as their own thoughts suggested.
Thus the call of the Gentiles, that is the admission of the Gentiles
to the Christian profession without a previous subjection to the
law of Moses, was imparted to the Apostles by revelation, and was
attested by the miracles which attended the Christian Ministry
among them. The Apostles' own assurance of the matter rested
upon this foundation. Nevertheless Saint Paul when treating of
the subject offers a great variety of topics in its proof and vindi-
cation. The doctrine itself must be received ; but it is not neces-
sary in order to defend Christianity, to defend the propriety of
every comparison, or the validity of every argument which the
Apostle has brought into the discussion."

Bp. Reginald Heber the saintly hymn writer (in his Bampton
Lectures (1816) on the ^^Personality and Office of the Christian Cam-
farter," VIII, p. 576-577).

Meantime however, I am most anxious to prove that mistakes
in points where inspiration did not properly apply can by no
means derogate from the inspired character of a work in those

300 BEJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

respects where inspiration was either needed or promised. I am
desirous to impress on your minds that circumstances which
whether true or false have no possible bearing on the doctrine or
character of Christ may belong indeed to his history, but are no
essential parts of his Gospel ; that while the words of Christ are
reported to us with supernatural and infallible authority we may
submit our faith in the actions of his life to that same human
evidence on which we at first believed thfem ; and that we may
admit the New Testament as an unerring and imperative rule in
every point of doctrine or of practice, though we should be for-
ever ignorant of the year in which Cyrenius governed Syria, or
whether the Apostate Judas met his fearful end by strangulation
or by rupture. Above all it has been my aim to show that by the
Comforter whom Christ foretold and by those blessed aids which
he too for Christ's sake dispensed to mankind, the faithful of every
age and nation are, no less than the Apostles themselves, infallibly
conducted to that truth which is in Jesus ; and that for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,
"the Scripture of the last no less than of the former covenant is
given by inspiration of God."

Thos. Scott (in his Essay of Inspiration^ pp. 11 and 12).

" Nor does it at all invalidate the complete inspiration of the
sacred writers, to allow that they expressed themselves in com-
mon language, and wrote of things as men generally spoke of them,
rather than according to philosophical exactness or in the style
that was used in the schools of the learned during the ages in
which they lived. Supposed or unimportant errors, or inaccuracies
of expression in such things, are not in the least inconsistent with
that divine inspiration of which we speak ; for the Scriptures were
not written to make us exact philosophers, or to instruct us in
ancient history or geography, but to make us wise unto salvation."

(p. 11.) By the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures I mean
such an immediate and complete discovery by the Holy Spirit to
the minds of the sacred writers of those things which could not
have been otherwise known ; and such an effectual superintend-
ence, as to those matters which they might be informed of by
other means, as entirely preserved them from error, in every par-
ticular, which could in the least affect any of the doctrines or precepts
contained in their books."

REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY. 301

In the light of these quotations, which might easily be mul-
tiplied, it is difficult to understand the words of Drs. Hodge
and Warfield (Presb. Rev. 18S1, p. 24): **It is not ques-
tionable that the great historic Churches have held these creed
definitions in the ^ense of affirming the errorless infallibility of
the Bible. This is every where shown by the way in which
all the great bodies of P^-otestant theologians have handled
Scripture in their commentaries, systems of theology, cate-
chisms, and sermons. And this has always been pre-eminently
characteristic of epochs and agents of reformation and revival.
All the great world-moving men, as Imther, Godviuj Knox,
Wesley, Whitefield and Chalmers, and proportionately those
most like them, have so handled the Divine Word. Even if
the more lax doctrine has the suffrage of many scholars, or
, even if it be true, it is nevertheless certain that hitherto in nine-
teen centuries it has never been held by men who also pos-
sessed the secret of using the Word of God like a hammer or
a fire."

It is probably with this passage in mind that Mr. Lowe
affirms that ** without inerrancy the Scriptures lose their
power." The doctrine is fundamental because "only an iner-
rant revelation can accomplish in the human soul the work for
which revelation is given." The examples I have given show,
at any rate, that it is not necessary to hold to inerrancy in
order to feel the Bible's power and to show the fruits of the
Spirit.

But the comn\ittee have paid very little attention to what I
said about errors of transcription. They are not inclined to
have any thing to do with the ** original autograph," though
they say it is referred to in the charge. But this is a matter
needing serious attention. For we who study the Bible as exe-
getes are obliged to notice the actually existing discrepancies.
We can not deny their existence or say with Mr. Lowe that

302 REJOINDER TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPLY.

they are not material. We know they are there. My state-
ment of the facts is not questioned. But if the doctrine of the
committee is true, then whatever power the Word ever had
must be lost. For they make its power depend on its iner-
rancy. And when as text critics we are asked to say that all
the errors have come in by transmission, we must give our
honest judgment that they can not be accounted for in
this way.

The argument of the committee is that their doctrine of
inspiration is fundamental because (1) it has always been held
in the Church ; (2) it is plainly stated in the Confession; (3)
it is plainly taught in the Scriptures; and (4) it is indis-
pensable to the Christian life. On all four points I believe I
have shown the committee to be mistaken. It is they, and
not I, who are the innovators. They are trying to force as a
fundamental doctrine what can not be so regarded.

GUILT OR INNOCENCE. 303

CHAPTER XI.

GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

The reader will have discovered that the discussion up to
this point was on the sufficiency of the Charges and Specifi-
cations. It resulted in some changes in the form of the
specifications, and that all the documents may be in posses-
sion of the inquirer, the amended document is given in the
Appendix. The evidence adduced in the trial only estab-
lished what the reader already knows — tliat my papei* on Bibli-
cal Scholarship and Inspiration was first read in the ministerial
Association and at its request. One witness remembered
that he had suggested my appointment to read on this sub-
ject, and gave as his reason his surprise at the position taken
by Dr. Evans and myself concerning the doctrine of in-
spiration at the meeting of Presbytery. As we had strictly
confined ourselves to general arguments at that meeting and
had not made any doctrinal statements whatever, this con-
firms what was said above, namely : that our defense of Dr.
Briggs had already convicted us of heresy in the minds of the
majority.

As there was no serious questioti concerning the evidence
the arguments were made again on the doctrinal question.
And here it became increasingly evident that the Committee
were trying not me, but the specter of infidel Higher Criti-
cism embodied in me. To their minds one admitted error in
Scripture destroyed its divine authority and led logically to
blank atheism. This had been made plain by an earlier ut-
terance of one member of the Committee, who had said in

304 GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

substance; **If the writers of the Sacred Books knowingly
suppressed the truth or suggested falsehood, their characters
for veracity are gone. . According to this.they were not even
honest men, much less men inspired of God. Fahus in uno,
fcdsus in omnihuSj is a maxim in the law of evidence. If a
witness is found to be a conscious liar in any part of his tes-
timony, the court and jury are not bound to believe one word
he says. . . . The charge brought against the Chronicler
every honest gentleman would deem an insult. Particularly
injurious is it when brought against an historian. Imagine
Froude or Parkman under such a charge. . . . If Chronicles
be such a book as is alleged, no sort of inspiration is possible
therein but satanic. To assert that false statements are in-
spired of God seems indistinguishable from blasphemy of the
Holy Ghost. When the works which Jesus did were de-
clared to be the works of the devil, he declared that sin to be
unpardonable. What is the difference between attributing to
Beelzebub the works of the Holy Ghost and attributing to
the Holy Ghost the proper works of Beelzebub? If one be
the sin which hath never forgiveness, what is the other ? It
were better far to deny all inspiration ; that would be simply
a negation ; to assert an inspiration, of falsehoods is nothing
less or other than blasphemy."

This language shows plainly enough that the Committee
were incapable of apprehending the real point at issue, or un-
willing to apprehend it. When challenged for not charging
the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in their indict-
ment, and in consistency urging the penalty of excommuni-
cation, they excused themselves by saying that my views lead
logically to that sin, though I had not consciously committed
it. Analysis of their later argument shows that they were
striving to convict not me but the [supposed] logical conse-
quences of my position. " If we accept the premises of mod-

GUILT OR INNOCENCE. 305

ern criticism, we must accept its conclusions. The Bible at
once sinks to the level of other books. It is no longer God's
revelation to men. Its supernatural character is at once lost.
The Old Testament ceases to be preparatory for Christianity
as the religion of a Divine Revelation. There is no sin and
no need of a Savio;*. From this point of view, we can very
readily accept the position of a Haeckl, and^deny the exist-
ence of a personal God. We can not see any stopping place.
If we relinquish the Bible, and the present discussion involves
this, what have we in its place ? "

Now let us be frank. If the present discussion involves
this, then we must give up the Bible. The position of the
Committee is that of Drs. Hodge and Warfield — that one
proved error overthrows the Bible. In that case the Bible is
already overthrown, for the single proved error is easily
found. But, even if this were true, this logic of the Com-
mittee could not rightly be forced on one who refuses to re-
ceive it. One who is obliged to admit the existence of error,
and who yet keeps his Bible and accepts the Confessional as-
sertious concerning it, ought to be safe from conviction, even
if it be at the expense of logic. The Committee had no rea-
son to ignore the fact that I do not accept the conclusions to
which they would force me. So far from denying, I have
strongly asserted the reality of supernatural revelation.
The Old Testament I believe fully to be * * preparatory for
Christianity as the religion of a Divine revelation." The re-
ality of sin, the need of a Savior, the existence of a personal
God, I maintain in the strongest terms, and also that these
are made known to us in the Bible. How it could be said
that " no enemy of Christianity teaches any thing more in-
jurious" than I teach surpasses my comprehension.

' The Chairman of the Committee compared the higher crit-
icism to the Jinnee in the Arabian Nights who was sealed up
20

306 QUILT OR INNOCENCE.

in a small jar. When the jar was unstopped, a vast cloud
of smoke issued from it which finally took the form of a
dreadful giant. In me they insisted this spirit of evil might
be crushed. It may be doubted whether the Presbytery
actually had the power implied in the comparison. The
same gentleman read from Dr. Howard Osgood, who, after
naming sixteen representative higher critics, adds : "These
authors would all agree in the clear statement and logical
position of Professor Kuenen : * It is the common conviction
of all the writers of the New Testament that the Old Testa-
mettt is inspired of God, and is thus invested with Divine
authority. The remark made, as it were in passing, in a
passage of the Fourth Gospel, that the Scriptures can not be
broken, is assented to by all the writers without distinction.
It is unnecessary to support these statements by quoting pass-
ages. Such passages are, as every one knows, very numer-
ous. Its judgment may be regarded as diametrically opposed
to ours. So long as we regard and judge the authors of the
New Testament solely and only as expositors of the writings
of the Old Testament, we stand in fact in the presence of this
dilemma. We must either cast aside as worthless our dearly
bought scientific method, or must forever cease to acknowl-
edge the authority of the New Testament in the domain of
the exegesis of the Old. Without hesitation, we choose the
latter alternative.*" The speaker for the prosecution added :
**Aud that is the issue: Tvhether the combined testimony of
the Word of God, in support of its inspiration, is to stand
against the critical theories of Kuenen and his school." The
reader will understand, after reading these utterances, why I
said in reply that the Commiittee were arguing the case of all
the higher critics in Germany, France, Holland, and Great
Britain. For myself, I have never taken a brief for Kuenen or
set up any ** dearly bought scientific method " against the Word

\

GUILT OR INNOCENCE. 307

of God. What I have said is, that we must recognize facts
when they are pointed out to us, and must make our doctrine
of inspiration correspond to the facts. To argue that one
proved error overthrows the Scriptures, is like arguing that
a single sin on the part of a Christian shows that there is no
such thing as regeneration.

How far the view of the Committee is from commanding
the assent of sober minded men is evident from the quotations
given from Henry B. Smith in a preceding chapter. To
these may be added his opinion concern ing Tholuck. Tholuck,
as is well known, was an advocate of the freer view of in-
spiration, distinctly rejecting the theory of inerrancy. Henry
B. Smith uses the following words in a lecture delivered in
the chapel of the Church of the Covenant, New York, Janu-
ary, 1867 (quoted in Life of H. B. Smith, by his wife, pp.
270, 271) :

. ** Tholuck himself is a man who might have been a
great orientalist, or a great poet, or a successful dramatist, or
the first of German preachers, or unrivaled in the mere ampli-
tude of his general attainments. Something of all these he
still is, but he is also more than any one or all — he is a de-
vout believer. His infl.uence turned the tide against rational-
ism at Halle' (its stronghold) when he was still young ; his
preaching inspired all who heard him with a better and
tenderer faith ; his life lived down his calumniators ; his per-
sonal influence — so affable is he, so quick to feel, so felicitous
in rebuke — has molded more young men than has any other
German theological teacher." . . . **His lecture room is
still thronged, and no one now expounds the most profound
and spiritual parts of Scripture with a deeper insight, with an
humbler and truer faith."

It is inconceivable that the distinguished New School theo-
logian could have used such words of a man whom he would

308 GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

have shut out of the ministry of Christ and the service of the
Presbyterian Church.

My object in this chapter is to give such an outline of the
arguments as shall enable the reader to form some idea of the
issue actually tried. With an allusion to one or two points
more I shall leave the subject. One thing that can not be
passed by is the attempt of the Committee to range Dr.
Evans on their side. ** Said Pr. L. J. Evana — whose name
is mentioned in this body with most tender memory — in the
Presbyterian Review, in one of the most magnificent articles
that ever came from his pen, and in which I believe he establishes
on exegetical grounds (as I shall show you later) the old doo-
trine of the Church, so that even a later caveat from him is un-
able to break the connecting links of his invincible logic**
[follows a quotation] — such was the language of the Chairman.
The assertion that Dr. Evans in the article quoted [the same
quoted in Chapter V, above] established the old doctrine of
the Church (i. e., as interpreted by the Committee iheir doc-
trine) is abundantly refuted by the very article quoted, as I
have already shown. So far from the paper on Biblical
Scholarship and Inspiration being a later caveat, it was to
Dr. Evans himself exactly in line with the other article.
There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Evans changed his
view or supposed himself to have changed his view on this
subject during his whole ministerial life.

The Committee in order to refute my statements concern-
ing the Chronicler read at length from Edersheim (Bible
History, VII, pp. 15-21). Whoever will take pains to .ex-
amine this discussion will discover (1) that it is vitiated by
the assumption that the two accounts must be harmonized ;
(2) that it is not clear or consistent with itself; (3) that it
ignores the most important fact, that the part assigned to
the guard in Kings is assigned to the Levites in Chronicles.

GUILT OR INNOCENCE. 309

The question is whether the student who discovers these diffi-
culties is bound nevertheless to accept the harmonistic theory.
The logic of the Committee would lead the Church to publish
an authorized harmony of the Bible to which her ministers
must subscribe.

My argument is given in the next chapter, with the judg-
ment of Presbytery appended.

/

310 ARGUMENT.

CHAPTER Xn.

THE ARGUMENT.

On Charge I.

The charge is of teaching * * that a minister in said Church
may abandon the essential features of the system of doctrine
held by said Church, and which he received and adopted at
his ordination, and rightfully retain his position as a minister
in said Church."

I labor under some embarrassment in arguing this charge,
because I still think the charge indefinite in language. One
of the prosecutors remarked that I objected to one charge as
ambiguous, and then proceeded to argue on it an hour and a
half, as if the length of the argument disproved the ambigu-
ity. But it proves the ambiguity. For it is obvious that the
more indefinite is the charge, the more time must be spent on
the inquiry into its meaning. The indefiniteness of this
charge was plainly brought out by the very discussion which
led to the sustaining of the sufficiency of the charge. For
the expressions of the speakers at that time showed wide va-
riety in the apprehension of the charge. Some evidently sup-
posed the offense to be disloyalty to the church ; some sup-
posed it to be dishonesty^ or the teaching of dishonesty; others
took it to be denial of- the right of discipline and order in the
Church ; still others supposed it a violation of my vow to
study the peace and purity of the Church. So there are five
possible offenses contained in the charge, and no one knows
which is intended. If the five were distinctly specified as five

ARGUMENT. 311

charges, I should have good hopes of being acquitted. Be-
cause I doubt if enough members of the court would pro-
nounce me guilty of either one to secure conviction. As it
is, the ambiguity of the charge may lead to my conviction, be-
cause it will allow all who interpret it in either of the five
ways indicated, to vote to sustain the charge.

The evidence shows that I contributed two articles to the
New York Evangelist, one entitled ** How Much is Implied
in Ordination Vows?" the other entitled **The Sin of
Schism." The object of the papers is sufficiently indicated in
the titles. They were written because of the frequent insin-
uations or assertions in the press that men in the Presbyterian
Church whose views are not in harmony with those of the
majority, oug^ to retire, from the Church. These assertions
were accompanied by reflections on the loyalty or honesty of
those who in these circumstances persist in remaining in the
Church. It will be obvious to you that when one does not
agree with such assertions, it is his plain duty to examine and
state the grounds of his disagreement. This is what I did.
And I did what the case required. The interpretation of a
contract is always a legitimate subject of inquiry. My first
paper was devoted to the examination of ordination engage-
ments with a view to determine what they justly contain. Un-
less I have been guilty of improper language or of conscious
misstatement this could constitute no ofiense. So far from
questioning the authority of the Church, or urging any thing
that would undermine that authority, I have recognized that
authority all through the article. I did not even examine the
regulations of the Church with a view to determine whether
they are Scriptural — something which every officer and mem-
ber of the Church is expressly authorized to do by the Con-
fession and the Form of Government. My sole inquiry was :

312 AKGUMENT.

" How much is properly and legitimately contained in the
questions put to the minister at ordination ? "

With this in inind, you can readily determine the bear-
ing of the quotation made by the committee from the first
article:

**But it is worth remarking further, that this doctrinal
qualification is required only at ordination. That men^s views
may change after ordination was as true in the last century
as it is now. Had it been the intention of the Church to se-
cure strict doctrinal uniformity, it would have required
frequent subscription, if not frequent examination. Not
only is no provision made for this, but the candidate for or-
dination is nowhere warned that if his doctrinal views should
change, he must acquaint his Presbytery with the fact. Even
in the present doctrinal alarm, but one man has proposed re-
peated subscription, and even he limited his proposition to
professors of theology. It is clearly the theory of the Church
that a minister once inducted into the sacred office may be
safely left to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. By his suc-
cess in the ministry he acquires a right not to be disturbed^
except in cases of exceptional gravity, and even here the pre-
sumption may be said to be in his favor."

Comparing this with the rest of the article, it will readily
be seen that ** this doctrinal qualification *' refers to the act of
subscription by the minister. It is mentioned here only as-
bearing on the mind of the Church. This is seen from the
sentence : ** Had it been the intention of the Church to secure
strict doctrinal uniformity, it would have required frequent
subscription." I now see that the word qualification is in this
connection capable of a double interpretation. Had I said
** this doctrinal qualification hy ike man is required only at or-
dination," no one could have mistaken my meaning.

This is not the place to defend the correctness of my argu-

AKGUMENT. 313

ment. That the words cited do not prove the charge must
be evident. For there is no mention of esserUicd features of
the doctrinal system or of abandoning them. There is noth-'
ing about a minister's right to remain in the Church after
abandoning them. The sole object of discussion is: how
much conformity to the doctrinal views held in the Church
does the natural and intended sense of the words in the ordi-
nation subscription require?

The second citation taken from the article on the **8in of
Schism" has been wrongly interpreted by the committee.
The citation, as given by the committee, is :

'^My contention is that in this difficult and delicate mat-
ter" (exposition of what the ordination * vows' do imply),
** the Church has herself undertaken to draw the line, and
that she has undertaken to draw it by judicial process." . . .
**And when an alleged error is not treated by the Church as
an offense (either in that process is not instituted, or in that
conviction does not result), then the Church broadens her in-
terpretation of the 'system of doctrine.' Not long ago I
was told sharply that the Church refuses to answer questions
in Ihed. How, then, we can know what is included in the
system of doctrine, except by judicial process, does not ap-
pear."

You notice that the committee have interpreted my refer-
ence to the difficult an^ delicate matter under discussion by in-
serting in parenthesis, ** exposition of what ordination vows
do imply." But this does not correctly give my meaning.
The preceding paragraph shows that I have in mind the in-
terpretation of the phrase system of doctrine. Let me make
this clear. It is admitted on all hands that we subscribe to
the system of doctrine and that by this is meant the essential
and necessary articles of the Confession. Dr. Charles Hodge
has abundantly shown this in the article already quoted by

314 ARGUMENT.

your committee. Now the question arises, how shall we know
luhat are essential articles f It was this matter which I had in
mind when I spoke of the Church herself drawing the line.
Let me illustrate. Dr. Hodge, in the article jalready alluded
to, mentions a definite atonement as one of the essential articles
of our system. On this point some would not agree with
him. How does the Church decide between them? I can
not see any way which is conclusive of the mind of the
Church except by judicial process. The case is precisely par-
allel to what we see in civil life. Suppose a contract to be
differently interpreted by the parties. The only way to settle
it is to bring suit in a court. Suppose a number of persons
are involved in the same manner. A test case is made in
order to construe the contract. When this is finally decided
by the highest court, all parties must guide themselves by it
because it settles the principle. Now, how do you know
whether'1;he doctrine of a definite atonement is essential to
our system? Why, you say, the Church does not prosecute
those who hold a different view. Suppose any one to think it
an essential. The only way in which he can get an au-
thoritative decision is to begin process in the courts of the
Church.

Now, remember, we have nothing to do with the correct-
ness of these arguments. The sole question for you is : does
this sustain the charge ? Plainly it does not. It makes no
mention of abandoning essential features of our system. It
says nothing of a minister's abandoning such features and
rightfully remaining in the Church. Its only interest with
the essential features is to inquire how we may know them
when we see them. Or, to put the charge in the different
forms in which it seems to be held in the mind of members
of the court, we may notice :

ARGUMENT. 315

(1) There is no evidence to show that I impugn the West-
minster doctrine of the Church.

(2) There is no evidence to show that I assail the funda-
mental principles of Church order as set forth in the Form of
Government.

(3) There is no evidence to show that I teach or encourage
disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church.

(4) There is no evidence to show that I teach that a lawful
contract may be broken or evaded, or that X encourage any
to break or evade a lawful contract. •

(5) There is no evidence that I have in any way injured
the peace or purity of the Church.

And, if any other offenses are implied in the language of
this charge, they are equally unsupported by the evidence.

On Charges II and III.

Expecting that the evidence being now before us, we should
argue its bearing on the formulated charges and specifications,
I was disappointed to have the committee go into alarmist ap-
peals against supposed dangers to the Church. It would per-
haps be enough reply to these to say that no evidence appears
in their support, and that the appeals themselves are not for-
mulated in the charges. As however, the alarm raised by
such appeals is one of the worst enemies to sobriety of judg-
ment you will I am sure bear with me in the endeavor to
point out their exact force and applicability to the case.
. In the first place the committee say as they have said before
that this issue is forced upon them by me. Let us try to get
at the exact meaning of this phrase. The committee acknow-
ledge, of course, that I am (so far) a minister in good stand-
ing in the Presbyterian Church. They do not deny as I
understand it that I suppose myself to hold the system of doc-
trine contained in the Confession. I, on my part, do not deny

316 ARGUMENT.

that they honestly suppose me to have departed from it. There
is an honest difference of opinion. If my departure is in their
view so wide that ray errors strike at the vitals of religion, of
course they can not tolerate my presence in the Church. But
they are forced by their own consciences not by me. If that
is all they mean we need say no more about it. But if I mis-
take not, they intimate that in some way I am at fault and
assume that I am trying to force some doctrine on the Church.
But this is no mpre true than in any other case of discussion.
In all such cases the representative of each side tries to show
that his doctrine is the correct one. This can hardly be called
forcing the doctrine on the Church.

But the committee intimate that it would have been so easy
for me to avoid this issue. It would have been eaisy for me to
leave the Church, especially whei^the General Assembly urged
upon all not in agreement with our Church to leave her minis-
try. And we are told that any company of citizens has a
right to associate to defend any absurdity and may determine
the objects they will pursue and the terms of their member-
ship. But this comparison seems to forget the very point at
issue. The company of citizens who associate in a club to
advocate, (let us say), the flatness of the earth will be held by
law strictly to its own articles of association. It will not be
allowed to expel members at the mere will of the majority.
This is the very point in hand. All that I have ever claimed
is that being myself convinced that I am in entire harmony
with the doctrine of the Church, I can not yield to the resof
lution of any majority, which assumes to decide that question
contrary to the constitution of the Church.

But there is a very much deeper question here than the
voluntary association of individuals for some matter of per-
sonal interest. The unity of the body of Christ manifests it-
self in the association of every true Church. The right of the

ARGUMENT. 317

Church to declare the terms of admission to its communion
and the qualifications of its ministers and members, is a right
conferred by Christ himself. It is to be exercised as the
system of government which He hath appointed. It is to be
limited by the rules He has given in the word and by the pro-
vidential indications of his will. Now let us say in the exer-
cise of this authority a man has been set apart to the Christian
ministry in the Presbyterian Church. He has perhaps been
born into that Church, has been baptized in it, has been admit-
ted to its communion. As manhood approaches he hears the
call of the Master and offers himself to the Presbytery for li-
censure and then for ordination. The Church is to him the
representative of his Lord. Her voice conveys his message
and her ordination seals the message with the Master's ap-
V proval. If such a man is called to the ministry at all he is
called by the voice of the Presbyterian Church. But now a
majority of the General Assembly supposing him to have de-
parted from the faith thunders at him to get out of our bounds.
He asks if this means out of the ministry and is tpld no — only
out of our ministry. He asks where he shall go and is told it
makes no difference where, only he must go. • He finds no
providential indication, he sees no call to another denom-
ination, he finds himself in his heart more in harmony
with his own denomination than any other. He dares not go.
He has heard the voice of the Lord in the voice of the Church
calling him into the ministry. It may be that the decision of
the Church will be that there was a mistake, that he is not
called into the ministry. He will listen humbly to that voice,
but it surely is not too much to require that the decision shall
be rendered according to the forms of law and under the safe-
guards which the Church has herself throwa around the rights
of the individual — rights so apt to be threatened in any com-
munity by the zeal or passions of the majority. Of one thing

318 ARGUMENT.

he is certain. If he was not called into the ministry of
Christ by the action of the Presbyterian Church he was not
called into it at all. In such circumstances to treat his refusal
to leave as a wanton defiance of the voice of the Church, and
a willful disturbance of her peace is totally to ignore both the
rights of conscience and the principles on which the Church
is founded.

But a second informal charge is contained in' the argument
of the committee. They accuse me of arrogance and con-
tempt of my fellows — pluming myself On my small attain-
ments in scholarship. If this be so I will ask the pardon of
the youngest member of this court. If it be so I will accuse
myself of worse heresy than any the committee have discov-
ered. ** He that hath not the spirit of Christ is none of his.**
'' He that receiveth not the kingdom of God as a little child
shall not enter therein.'' If there is any thing I had supposed,
myself anxious to avoid it is the pride, of attainment. If there
is any thing I had supposed myself anxious to cultivate it is
the habit of jriewing things as a believer in Christ, one of his
followers, one who sees light in his light. That I have fallen
short of my ideal and of yours in this respect I can very well
believe. I beg you not to apply to me a standard too high
for human attainment. But while I acknowledge the human
infirmity which encompasses us all, I can not find in the pass-
age discussed by the committee the evidence of this accusation.
What I say (Rejoinder p. 81) is that ** for our present inquiry,
the testimony of one exegetical scholar is worth more than that
of three systematic theologians." Remember the point of the
inquiry. It is whether a particular doctrine is a doctrine of
Scripture. Bearing on this the committee introduced the lan-
guage of systematic theologians. This language did not assume
to expound the Scripture passages but to give a philosophical
exposition of the doctrine of inspiration. But this was beside the

ARGUMENT. 819

^oint. To decide what the exact force of the Biblical passages
is, of course the testimony of a Biblical scholar is of greater
value than that of any one else. Otherwise there would be no
use in having specialists at all. It was with no reference to the
superior value of my own department of study that I used this
language but on the common ground that expert testimony in
the cases which directly call for that testimony must be of the
first importance. In this particular instance therefore I can
not convict myself of arrogance or of overweening vanity..
And I did not reflect on the ability of the court. Nor did I
claim that critics could judge better as to the questions before
us than can the members of the court.

But the committee give us a third of these informal charges.
They now charge more or less distinctly that I am in the lead
of a great host of infidels attacking the Church. I am de-
scribed as in the lead of the assault. The historic faith of the
Church is in danger. The views I advocate are in their ten-
dency destructive of Christianity. The Church is forced to
struggle for her very life. It is a case of self preservation. And
the committee which a little while ago showed extreme deli-
cacy about discovering private matters to the view of the court
does not hesitate to begin their proof of this with the report
of a conversation known to but two persons. A pastor and
professor we are told had a conversation. The pastor invited
the professor to go at certain people with a club. The profes-
sor only replied with a faint smile. Now when you are in-
vited to go at a man with a club there may be various reasons
for declining. There is such a thing as choice of weapons. Not
every man knows how to use a club. The implement used
with such grace and skill by your committee might not be as
effective in the hands of smaller and less agile men. Then
there are clubs and clubs. When a man asks you to go at an-
other with a club and hands you the club you are entitled to

320 ARGUMENT.

say to him that isn't a club but a boomerang — a very different
weapon you will acknowledge. Let me illustrate this, for I
verily believe there is a lesson here for us. Suppose you own
a house — an old family mansion. Part of it was built by the
first settlers, part by your grandfather, part by your father.
You take pride in it of course and are very happy and com-
fortable in the possession of it. To you comes a stranger and
says: I am a builder and a judge of houses. This house is
not as old as you think. It is in fact a modern imitation of
various styles very badly mixed. Besides it is so badly built
that it will fall to pieces in a little while. It is really unin-
habitable now. What do you do ? . Why says the committee
— go at him with a club, there is absolutely no other way to
deal with such a fellow. Knock him down and drag him out.
Very well I I have no objection, though I do not see how that
shows the house to be any stronger. But suppose one of
your own children comes to you and says : I have been look-
ing at the house and there are some things not quite clear to
me about it. I do not think all of the colonial part is as old
as we think it, and I believe the part built fifty years ago has
had some changes made in it. Yet I confess it has made a
very good home for us, and I do not see why we should not
continue to live here as we always have lived h^re. What
will you do with such a child ? Why, says the committee he
is just as 'md as the other. There is nothing for it but the
club. And so the poor child must be knocked down and
dragged out because he is seeking to establish the beginnings
of a great system of errancy.

The committee have given you the key to the situation. A
party in Presbytery had a club ready for a brother of our own,
a member of another presbytery who is not yet convicted of
heresy. I did not consent to the use of the club. I believed
the club was more dangerous to its users than to the other

ARGUMENT. 321

party. I believe so still. I could not conscienti6usly use it
and opposed the use of it by others. This is the very head
and front of my offending.

I declined to use the club and opposed the use of it by
others. Hence I am become the representative of the Zeitgeist
— that arrogant and overbearing spirit, tolerant of every thing
but Christianity, the same which has always hated and perse-
cuted the Church of God. I am become the accuser of the
Presbytery charging it with believing in its religion and with
being faithful to its vow to defend the peace and purity of the
Church. I am become the cross questioner of the Almighty,
the advocate of destructive views, the destroyer of the Church.
Moderator, are these things so ?

** The Lord judge between me and you."

Charges II and III are substantially one. Both have to do
with the inspiration of the Scriptures ; for Charge II states
the Holy Spirit's control of the inspired writers of the Old
Testament as the doctrine impugned ; Charge III states the
doctrine impugned to be the doctrine of inspiration m</ie sense
in which it is attributed to the Holy Scriptures by the* Holy
Scriptures and the Confession. This was defined by the com-
mittee of prosecution to be the doctrine that inspiration secures
freedom from error^if inspiration does not secure absolute
truth of statement there is no inspiration, was in substance
the declaration of the committee. It seems to me impossible
therefore to separate the two Charges in thought, and if obliged
to argue them separately I should be obliged to make the same
speech twice.

The main question before us is one of evidence. And this
is of course confined to the particular evidence introduced
by your committee. On the details of this I remark the
following :

Specification 1 (Charge II) is not sustained by the evidence :
21

322 ARGUMENT.

Specification 1.

In a pamphlet entitled " Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration,'*"
published by the s^id Kev. Henry Preserved Smith, D. D., in
different editions in the year 1891, which pamphlet has been ex-
tensively circulated with his knowledge and approval, he teaches
that the inspired author of Chronicles has asserted sundry errors
of historic fact.— Pages 92, 100, 101, and 102.

The citation on p. 92 discusses Dr. Hodge's doctrine of in-
spiration, and is entirely covered by Specification 2. It con-
tains no assertion concerning the author of Chronicles. P. 100
characterizes the general method of the Old Testament writers
and is entirely covered by Specification 4. P. 102 asserts
concerning the Chronicler that he inserts from one source what
suits his purpose, and omits a good deal which does not answer
his purpose while inserting -a good deal from other sources.
There is nothing about asserting errors of fact.

[What the committee mean here is p. 103 which is entirely
covered by Specification 3.]

Specification 2 is partially sustained by the evidence :

Specification 2.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification' 1, he teaches that
the inspired author of Chronicles has suppressed sundry historic
truths, owing to inability or unwillingness to believe them. —
Pages 104, 105, 107, and 109.

The citation from p. 104 affirms that the Chrjonicler omitted
sundry statements of fact. Whether this can fairly be called
** suppressing them" which is generally associated with inten-
tional falsification is doubtful.

Specification 3 is partially supported by the evidence :

Specification 3.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches that
the inspired author of Chronicles incorporated into his narrative

ARGUMENT. . 323

and indorsed by his authority material drawn from unreliable
sources. — Pages 101 and 103.

The citations affirm that the Chronicler incorporated into
his narrative material drawn from unreliable sources. Strictly
speaking this does not sustain the charge, for material from
unreliable sources is not unreliable material — and this alone
bears on the charge. Moreover the evidence ndwhere shows
any assertion that the Chronicler indorsed any thing by his
authority. It is dgubtful therefore whether so much of the
specification as is established by the evidence can be made to
sustain the charge.

Specification 4 is discussed in the Eesponse (p. 18). To
affirm that historical documents need investigation, discrimina-
tion, and sifting is not to assert that they are historically un-
reliable. The specification therefore can not be said to be
established by the evidence. The true Prgtestant position is.
that the Bible will' come out all the more evidently divine
from the critical tests that are applied to it.

Specification 5 is not clearly established by the evidence :

Specification 5.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches the
historic unreliability of the inspired author of Chronicles to have
been such that '* the truth of events" can not be ascertained from
what he actually asserts, but from what he unwittingly reveals.
Pages 100, 108, 109.

The citation from p. 100 says nothing on the subject of
this specification. The citation from p. 108 says: **The
Book of Chronicles is invaluable to us, not for what it di-
rectly teaches, but for the light which it throws indirectly upon
its own time." We can not understand the New Testament
times without this light, though the committee say: ** What
do we care what the Jews of the Persian period were thinking ?"

324 ARGUMENT.

What I say might be said by the most stringent advocate of in-
errancy, and, of course, would not imply historical unreliabil-
ity. The citation from p. 109 gives the necessary criteria of a
real history. It does not deny inerrancy. It only asserts that
an inerrant record does not necessarily give us history.
Specification 6 is not established by the evidence offered :

Specification 6.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches that
the historical unreliability of the inspired author of Chronicles
extended to other inspired historic writers of the Old Testament.
Page 102.

The pamphlet, on p. 102, only afiSrms that the Chronicler's
metkod is that which we suppose to have been followed by
other historical writers, namely, compilation from previously-
existing sources.

Specification 7 still seems to me not proved by the evidence
offered :

Specification 7.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches that
the historic unreliability charged by him upon the inspired his*
torical writers of the Old Testament is chargeable, though in a
less degree, upon the inspired writers of the New Testament.
Page 115.

All that the passage cited affirms, is that fhere are greater
chances for error in the Old Testament than in the New.
This does not affirm that there are errors in either. It might
be postulated at the beginning of an inquiry, which should
result in establishing absence of error in both. The commit-
tee find in it a suggestion that there are errors in both— but
it is only a suggestion, not a logical inference. Compare
what is said in the Response, p. 18. [Bibl. Scnol. and Insp.
p. 114. Illustrated by Hodge, Outlines, p. 72.]

ARGUMENT. . 325

Specification 8, as amended, reads as follows:

Specification 8.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches that
the disclosures of religious experience given by the inspired au-
thors of the Psalms are not in accord with the mind of the Holy
Spirit, and free from moral defect. — Page 101.*

The first part of the citation from the pamphlet is the fol-
lowing : **The value of the Book of Job lies in the spectacle
of a human soul in the direst afiliction, woil^ing through its
doubts, and at last humbly confessing its weakness and sin-
fulness in the presence of its Maker. The inerrancy is in
the truth of the picture presented. It can not be located in
any statement of the author, or of any of his characters.
The same is true of the Psalms. They present us a picture
of pious experience in all its phases. We see every variety
of soul in every variety of emotion. The assertions of the
authors can not be taken for absolute truth."

The committee, in their citations, omitted the next two
sentences: **Nor can the authors, though doubtless all were
sincere believers in God, be taken as sinless models for the
Christian. Only Christ is that." These two sentences, whicb
I have no doubt the members of the committee also accept as
true, are really the key to what precedes, as well as what
follows. The prosecutors themselves do not believe that the
authors of the Psalms are models for us in the sense in which
Christ is a model for us. But if they admit this, they can
not hold, it seems to me, that the experiences disclosed' to us
in the Psalms are /ree from moral defect^ which is the point of
the charge. Whose experience is free from moral defect ?

* The committee in their argument cited also p. 97 on inaccurate
titles.

326 ARGUMENT.

t

No saint has such an experience. If it be the mind of the
Holy Spirit (and I believe it is ; there is certainly no evi-
dence to show that I have denied it), to give us the choice
experience of picked men in all conceivable circumstances, it
can not yet be an experience free from moral defect, because
no such experience exists. When the context is taken into
consideration, therefore, the thing asserted is no more than
the committee themselves believe. But even if this be not
so, then the specification is not relevant to this charge, as was
shown by the Respon'se, pp. 20, 21. Charge II has to do with
truthfulness of statement, this specification has to do with
sinless experience.

Specification 9 is not sustained by the evidence cited :

Specification 9.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches that
the assertions made by the inspired authors of the Psalms are not
to be relied upon as absolutely true. — Page 101.

The evidence is cited just above. The particular sentence
relied upon to sustain this specification is: **The assertions
of the authors can not be taken for absolute truth." The most
natural meaning of this language is that the truth of the Book
of Psalms can be understood only as the statements are taken
relatively. This is brought out by the passage following which
is part of the testimony cited : **The Psalms present us a
record of actual experience of believers in the past. We can
study and profit by this experience all the more that it has in
it human weakness. The subjects of the experience doubtless
had the power of correctly expressing their feelings, but that
is not the inerrancy which has been claimed for them, and
which the theologians desire. The imprecations, which have
been such a stumbling-block to some, are enough to ^rove this
point."

ARGUMENT. ' 327

If you allow me to interpret this by the context I will say
that the point is the difference between a doctrinal statement
and a description of experience. The interest of the advocate
of inerrancy is mainly with direct doctrinal assertions. Such
statements there are no doubt in the Psalms: **The Lord
reigneth; he is clothed with majesty."- But when you come
to search for them it is wonderful how few of these there are.
The bulk of the Book of Psalms is of another character. The
assertions made are understood only as we enter into the feel-
ings of those who speak. Such assertions can not be taken
therefore for absolute truth. Inerrancy can not be predicated
of them at all except as meaning that the subjects correctly
express their experiences, and this inerrancy is affirmed in the
passage cited. Notice what is said about the Book of Job. It
seems to me quite evident that the absolute truih of the book in
the sense of the committee only means that the dialogue is cor-
rectly reported, which I have no where denied. Now this
being so, we still have left the more important problem of the
truth of the thing uttered. The committee have already de-
clined to guarantee the truth of Satan's sayings. Will they do
«ny more for Job's three friends? I suspect not. Will they
justify Job himself as giving a truthful disclosure of an experi-
ence free from moral defect ? I doubt it. The despair of a
good man overcome by affliction, which leads him to curse the
day of his birth, doubt the goodness of God and accuse him of
injustice, however profitable it may be, can not be called free
from moral defect. It is this characteristic of the Books of
Job and Psalms, the element of experience^ in them, which
makes it difficult to discover what statements the authors of
this charge have in mind when they predicate of them absolute
truih. Where is the absolute truth of such a statement as this :
** O daughter of Babylon that art to be laid waste, happy shall
be be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy

328 ARGUMENT.

shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
rock?" (Ps. cxxxvii, 8, 9). The absolute truth is not our in-
terest, but the experience of God's people.

Specification 1, under Charge III, is not established by the

evidence cited.

Specification 1.

In a pamphlet entitled " Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration,'*
published by the said Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D. D., in dif-
ferent editions in the year 1891, which pamphlet has been exten-
sively circulated with his knowledge and approval, he teaches that
the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with the un-
profitableness of portions of the sacred writings.

I may here repeat what I said in the Response (p. 14) :
** Now, it would be easy to challenge the committee to show
from the passage cited, or any other, that I teach an inspira-
tion consistent with unprofitableness. The passage cited is
an argumentum ad hominem. It simply points out that the
emphasis of a verse of Scripture often urged against my view
is not on inspiration but on 'profitableness. It then asks those
who insist on a thoroughly verbal inspiration if they are con-
sistent in equally urging the profitableness of every jot and
tittle of Scripture. It is in effect saying, * let him that is with-
out sin among you cast the first s):one.' Whether this was a
legitimate argument or not, is not here in point. It was sim-,
ply an argument from premises admitted by my opponents (at
that time, I mean), and contains no assertion of any kind od
my part."

The committee insist that when I say (p. 116) : *' This
seems to me the hardest part of it," I mean it is harder
than to believe in inerrancy (which I do not believe). But
reference to the passage shows that I mean it is harder to be-
lieve the profitableness than the inspiration. The latter, how-
ever, I firmly believe in.

ARGUMENT. 329

I

I

To this evidence the committee now add the note on p. 117
of the pamphlet on ** Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration."
But this note simply affirms that ** the profitableness of all
Scripture is not realized in ordinary Christian experience."
But later, on the same page, I affirm the abundant profitable-
ness of things not ordinarily made profitable in that they help
us to a knowledge of the structure of Scripture.

Specification 3 is perhaps supported *by the evidence,
though it may well be doubted whether it sustains the charge :

Specification 3.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification I, he teaches that
the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with such un-
reliability in their utterances that the truth of events can not be
ascertained from their utterances themselves.

The question is what the charge means by * ' not ascertaining
the truths of events from the utterances themselves." If the
committee mean that the historical facts of Scripture can be
ascertained fully without help from outside sources, I think
few will agree with them. For example, the historical truth
of the creative days in Genesis — is this ascertained from the
utterances of the sacred writer themselves? Is not our full
knowledge of this historical truth acquired rather from Gene-
sis and geology combined ? This seems to me undeniable. The
same question might be put with regard to the chronology of
various parts of the Old Testament. The data given by the
Old Testament writers are more fully understood by the light
given by the Assyrian monuments (for example) so that it
seems to me quite legitimate to say that in these cases- the
truth of events is not ascertained from the Old Testament
utterances themselves. But this does not necessarily imply
unreliability and would be admitted by the strictest advocate
of inerrancy as quite consistent with his theory of inspiration.

{

330 , ARGUMENT.

■

Specification 4 is supported to a certain extent by the evi-
dence, though its language is grossly exaggerated :

Specification 4.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches that
the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with a bias in
the inspired writers, rendering them incapable of recording the
truth of events because incapable of believing it.

The natural interpretation of this language is that the in-
spired writers were all so biased as never to be capable of re-
cording the truth of events. If it be changed to this : that
occasionally the bias of the writers shows itself in their nar-
rative, it would be nearer what is conveyed by the evidence
cited.

It seems, therefore, that Specification 8, under Charge II,
and Specification 3, under Charge III, are not relevant to
those charges. Specifications 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, under
Charge II, and Specification 1, under Charge III, are not
proven. Specifications 2 and 3, under Charge II, and Speci-
fication 4, under Charge III, are mainly established by the
evidence, though they are unfortunately worded and ambigu-
ous. The only Specifications fully established by the evi-
dence are 10 and 11 (with the committee's' explanation), un-
der Charge II, and Specification 2 under Charge III.

This evidence, therefore, shows that I have asserted the
following points: (1) The Chronicler has omitted from his
book sundry statements of fact; (2) the inspiration of
the Scriptures is consistent with error of fact in their affirma-
tions ; (3) the inspiration of the Scriptures is consistent with
a bias of the writers which influences their utterances ;
(4) that a portion of the Book of Isaiah is by another prophet
than Isaiah ; and (5) it is impossible on the basis of the

V

/

ABGUMENT.' 3Sl

facts as we have them to conclude that the Old Testament
Scriptures are free from all error of fact.

The other evidence offered shows the circumstances in
which these utterances were made to have been as follows :
They were made in a discussion before the Ministerial As-
sociation and at the invitation of the Association ; they were
made really, though not formally, as a part of a debate in
Presbytery in which the other side was fully represented;
they were made under the conscientious conviction that the
overture before Presbytery was likely to injure a member
of another Presbytery.

The evidence has failed to show that the publication of the
address was any thing but incidental to its delivery in the
Association.

The negative form of some of the assertions made in the
address is accounted for by the fact of its being an argument
and not a treatise.

These considerations should be kept in view as bearing in
an important sense on the degree of guilt if guilt there be.
They show that the question is largely a question of freedom
of discussion. The prosecution do not accuse me of teaching
any wrong views in the class-room nor of preaching them from
a pulpit. My utterances were called out by a debate in which
I had a right to take part, and in which it was my duty to
take part. The committee have not alleged any desire on my
part to make propaganda. Their assertion that there was an
attempt to force these views upon the Church I have already
discussed.

The question then is, is it a crime for a minister in these
circumstances to argue that inspiration did not so far remove
or overcome the bias natural to the human mind as to make
every statement of the inspired writers absolutely true ? I
have already argued at length that this is neither the doo-

832 ARGUMENT.

trine of the Confession nor of the Scripture. I will not go
over these arguments again. While the Confession recognizes
the divine element as pervading Scripture, it makes no
affirmation as to the human element. It would be absurd to
suppose that the authors of the Confession denied the pres-
ence of a human element in Scripture.

The precise point at issue is the co-operation of the human
and the divine in Scripture. It was at one time thought
necessary to affirm that the divine altogether effaced the hu-
man. The inspired writers were called the amanuenses, or
even the pens of the Holy Spirit. But this point of view
has long been given up. It may now be taken as generally
conceded that the writers retained their s^lf-consciousness,
their individuality of style, and their own mental idiosyncra-
sies. In fact it is now admitted by the most conservative
that the inspired writers drew on the testimony of others,
previously existing written documents, their own memories
and reasoning powers. I may quote again here from Profess-
ors Warfield and Hodge, who say: **Paul and John and
Peter largely drew upon the resources and followed the lines
of their own personal religious experience in the intuitional
or the logical development of their doctrine." The Holy
Spirit, therefore, left considerable play to the human facul-
ties of the authors of tiie Scriptures. How much this was is
to be established by inductive study of the writings them-
selves. For it is entirely arbitrary to draw the line at error
of statement while allowing every other human imperfection.
We must suppose the Holy Spirit to be in himself possessed
.of all perfections. Did he not limit himself and condescend
to the weakness of his instrument he would he as incapable
of a mistake in grammar as of a mistake in arithmetic.
The Bible, as it came from God, should be as free from
one as from the other. Now, hear Drs. H"bdge and Warfield

ARGUMENT. 833

again : '* It must be remembered that it is not claimed that
the Scriptures, any more than their authors, are omniscient.
The information they convey is in the forms of human
thought, and limited on all sides. They were not designed to
teach philosophy, science, or human history as such. They
were not designed to furnish an infallible system of speculative
theology. They are written in human languages whose
words, inflections, constructions and idioms, bear everywhere in-
delible traces of human error. The record itself furnishes evi-
dence that the writers were, in large measure, dependent for
their knowledge upon sources and methods in ihemsdves fal-
lible; and that their personal knowledge and judgments were,
in many matters, hesitating and defective, or even 'ivrong,"

Again: ** There is a vast difference between exactness of
statement, which includes an exhaustive rendering of details,
an absolute literalness, which the Scriptures never profess,
and accuracy, on the other hand, which secures a correct
statement of facts or principles intended to be affirmed. It
is this accuracy, and this alone, as distinct from exactness,
which the Church doctrine maintains of every affirmation in

m

the original text of Scripture without exception."* It must
be evident that these authors ' make large concessions to the
human element in Scripture. The Holy Spirit, in their view,
uses the human mind or human powers without removing
wiany natural limitations. Why should we suppose .that he
always overcomes the tendency to mist&ke ? Or rather why
should he stop with making the writers correct inaccuracies
and yet leave inexact or incomplete statements ? There can be
no answer to this except that it pleased him so to do. But
how shall we know how much it pleased him to do? Evi-
dently we can know this only by an examination of what he

* Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 238.

334 ARGUMENT.

has done. As Drs. Hodge and Warfield wfeU say: ** The
question between ourselves and the advocates of the view
just stated is one of fact, to be decided only by an exhaustive
and impartial examination of all the sources of evidence, i, e.,
the claims and the phenomena of the Scriptures themselves"
(p. 237).

It can not be wrong, therefore, reverently to inquire into
what the Holy Spirit actually has done in this matter of in-
spiration. This is in fact the only way to determine what it
is his will to do. Take the parallel case of the sanctification
of believers. We are told that we are the temples of the
Holy Ghost. A priori might we not expect that the actual
indwelling of God hiftiself would necessarily burn out all sin
from the Christian heart? But those who have drawn this
conclusion have often been allowed to discover their mistake
by sad experiences of sin in their members warring against
the Spirit dwelling in their hearts. The natural deduction
has to be corrected by the facts.

In an inductive inquiry as to the extent to which the hu-
man element is allowed to appear in revelation, we must
notice that the tendency to mistake in the apprehension. and
statement of fact is universal. Dr. McKibbin has said here
that not even the professional and scientific historian is free
from bias. And it has also been said here, that in courts of
law, the examination of the most careful and honest witnesses
shows discrepancies almost without exception. The human
authors of Scripture in themselves considered, were therefore
liable to mistake in the statement of fact as well as in style
or grammar.

Another principle should be noted here : God's method of
working in this world is the method of practical suflSciency
not of absolute ideality. What he proposes to do is the
measure of the means by which he does it. Now, the only

ARGUMENT. SSo

light he gives us as to his purpose in giving us a Scripture, is
his declaration that it is to make us wise unto salvation. As
John says in his Gospel (xx, 30, 31): **Many other signs
therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are
not written in this book ; but these are written that ye may be-
lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that be-
lieving ye may have life in his name." God might have given
us a much fuller account of our Lord's life had he so willed.
The amount of material was limited by the rule of sufficiency.
He gave us enough to bring us into life. If it be God's will
to give us, by the hands of fallible men, a rule of faith and
practice, we may assume that he will overrule their fallibility
so as to make the rule sufficient for his purpose. We are not
entitled to assume more than this. To speak with Mr. Glad-
stone :

"No doubt there will be those who will resent any associa-
tion between the idea of a Divine Revelation and the possi-
bility of even the smallest intrusion ^ of error in the vehicle.
But ought they not to bear in mind that we are bound by the
rule of reason to look for the same methods of procedure in
this great matter of special provision of Divine Knowledge
for our needs, as in the other parts of the manifold dispensa-
tion under which Providence has placed us. Now, that
method or principle is one of sufficiency, not perfection ; of
sufficiency for the attainment of practical ends, not of con-
formity to ideal standards. Bishop Butler, I think, would
wisely tell us that we are not the judges, and that we are quite
unfit to be the judges what may be the proper amount,
and the just condition of any of the aids to be afforded us,
in passing through the discipline of life. I will only remark
that this default of ideal perfection, this use of a twilight in-
stead of a noonday blaze, may be adapted to our weakness,
and may be among the appointed means of exercising our

336 ARGUMENT.

faith. But what belongs to the present occasion is to point
out that if probability and not demonstration marks the di-
vine guidance of our paths in life as a whole, we are not en-
titled to require that when the Almighty, in his mercy, makes
a special addition by revelation to what he has already given
us of knowledge in nature and in Providence, that special
gift should be unlike his other gifts, and should have all its
lines and limits drawn out with mathematical precision."

Now I want you to bear in mind that this I heartily agree
with, or rather, as we are dealing with the evidence pre-
senteTd : The evidence does not show that I deny this sufficient
inspiration of all parts of Scripture. The question is whether,
because I do not go on and affirm more than this, I can be
found guilty of a crime against the Scriptures and the Con-
fession. And my first point is : If the facts of Scripture
are against affirming more than this, it can not be wrong not
to affirm more. Reasoning on the phenmnena of the Script-
ures is as legitimate as« reasoning on their assertions. And
when we come to examine the facts, we find that even the
upholders of inerrancy concede some things with which we
must reckon. One of these is the statement concerning the
human element in Scripture, already quoted from Drs. Hodge
and Warfield. Several similar concessions might be added
from the same authors. If my view of inspiration is beyond
the pale of the Confession, theirs also must be ; for the Con-
fession nowhere makes such concessions as that the language
of Scripture shows ** indelible traces of human error," or that
** the record itself furnishes evidence that the personal knowl-
edge and judgments [of the writers] were in many matters
hesitating, or even wrong." Again, Dr. Green says :

**The denial of inerrancy in the minima of Scripture, in
trivialities which are of no accpunt, and neither disparage
the truthfulness of the narrative, nor in any way affect its

ARGUMENT. 337

doctrinal statements, is compared by Dr. Charles Hodge
(Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 170) to the detdction of a
speck of sandstone here and there in the marble of the Par-
thenon. If this were all, it need create no uneasiness." — ^Dr.
W. H. Green, in N. Y. Observer, April 16, 1891.

And here let me say that the distinction between supposed
minima and supposed max'vma in the sphere we have in mind,
is not legitimate. If there be inerrancy, it must extend to
the smallest as well as to the largest matters. It is, in fact,
impossible for us to draw any such line. Who shall say that
the chronology of the Old Testament, in which so many con-
ceded discrepancies occur, shall be called a minimum ? The
only legitimate line is between things essential to the rule of
faith and things not essential to the rule of faith. Infallibil-
ity in the former is conceded on all hands. Inerrancy in the
latter must be judged by a careful induction of the facts.

Now it would seem that an inerrant book should show its
difference from other books on its face. Being unlike other
books, we ought to have no difiBculty in discovering this fact.
But as to its human elements, the Bible is abundantly human.
Jts self-evidencing infallibility is of quite a different order
from the appeal to the understanding which inerrancy should
make. On the surface of Scripture, as Drs. Hodge and War-
field concede, are undoubtedly found ** many apparent aflSrm-
ations presumably inconsistent with the present teachings of
science, with facts of history, or with other statements of the
sacred books themselves." The burden of proof, therefore,
rests with those who deny the legitimate conclusion from
these surface facts. It rests upon them to show, by careful
examination, that these apparent errors of statement are only
apparent. Can they do this? Have they done it?

It is, of course, not my purpose to give any list of these
apparent errors, or any extended discussion of them. Let
22

338 ARGUMENT.

me call your attention to one significant fact. If it were the
mind of tlie Holy Spirit completely to overrule natural bias
of the writers of Scripture, he would certainly do so in the
record of those facts most important to our faith. But he
has nol done so even here. T^or example : The two copies
of the Decalogue, given respectively in Exodus and Deuter-
onomy do not verbally agree. Besides minor variations, each
has in the Fourth Commandment a whole clause not contained
in the other. Now here is the very foundatipn testimony of
the Old Covenant. It consists of the words spoken by God
himself, and afterward written down on two tables of stone
by his own finger. If there ever was a case where diplomatic
exactness was important, this is the case. Yet even here the
Holy Spirit did not so control the tnind of the writers as to
make the two copies agree nerbatim. The case is the same, as
we know, with the Lord's Prayer. It was the prayer Christ
taught his disciples. Yet in transmitting it to us, the mem-
ories of these disciples were not guided into an inerrant re-
port, so that we can know the exact words which our Lord
himself used. The case of the inscription on the Cross is
too well known to require discussion. If inerrancy was to be
made evident to us, it should have been here. What is true
of this is true of the words of institution of the Lord's Sup-
per. Now, what I say is this : Had it. been the mind of God
to overrule bias, so as to secure absolute truth in every state-
ment, he would have done it in these passages so fundamental
to the being of the Church. That he has allowed variations
here, strengthens the presumption that he has not been par-
ticular to overrule them elsewhere. Bear in mind that I do
not charge unreliability on the witnesses in these cases. All
I say is that their variations are the same in kind with those
of other reliable witnesses. The existence of the variations
shows that the human element was not so overruled as to se-

ARGUMENT. §39

cure absolute accuracy — an accuracy unlike what we find in
other cases of honest testimony.

Such instances as these are prima facie against the theory
of inerrancy. But careful examination shows in the histori-
cal portions of the Old Testament much more pronounced
facts than these. No one, to my knowledge, has ques-
tioned my statement of facts in regard to Kings and Chroni-
cles. I may assume that the facts as I have stated them, are
substantially correct. What do they show ? They show that
the Chronicler made up his book largely by compiling from
other sources. In this work he had his own point of view,
which influenced his choice of material. Dr. W. H. Green
very rightly says, in commenting on I. Sam. xxxi, 10:
** Chronicles which was less concerned with what became of
Saul than with the transfer of the kingdom to David, makes no
mention of the disposition of SauFs body. In this narrative
Samuel and Chronicles each contain particulars not found in
the other, and thus mutually complete each other. This
makes it plain that one was not derived directly from the
other, but that both were drawn from a common original,
which each abridged in its own way, selecting what was most
in accordance with its purpose, and omitting some things*
which the other retained."* Here we have rightly stated the
method in which the human element was allowed to come
into the book. -The authors are influenced by their own point
of view. They meet concrete needs of the hour. They
write on particular occasions, and they avail themselves of
material already existing in literary form. This is a complex
process. Only on the ground of express declarations of
Scripture itself can we say that the natural liability to mis-
take which attends the whole process, is so overruled as to se-

* S. S. Times, September 7, 1889.

S4() ARGUMENT.

cure absolute truthfulness of every statement incorporated in
the narrative. Now look at a parallel instance. The
Apostles, as we know, had special divine help for their work
of founding the Church. They were fuJl of the Spirit. A
part of the work of founding the Church ^as the example of
their own Christian life. ** So walk," says Paul, ** as ye have
us for examples." Now, as if expressly to show us that this
indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which was vouchsafed in so large
measure, did not secure absolute perfection, we are told that
Peter, in Antioch, was carried away by the example of the
Jewish party, and ** dissembled with them." Might we not,
a priori, have reasoned that one of the chief Apostles in his
official intercourse with the young Gentile Church would have
been divinely guided so as not to be a stumbling block to the
new converts ? The case seems to me quite parallel to the
one we are considering. It was so taken in the early Church,
and it caused some of the Fathers as much searching of
heart as does the intimation of possible error in the record of
Scripture to some Christians nowadays. The case is this :
Peter, a recognized Apostle and leader of the Church, came
to Antioch. At first he exercised his Christian liberty, and
ate with Gentile converts. But when certain . came from
James who belonged to the stricter Jewish party, and who
held on to the Jewish exclusiveness, Peter ** drew back and
separated himself, fearing them of the circuipscision." This
example aflfected the whole Jewish element of the Church,
for they ** dissembled likewise with him ; insomuch that even
Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation." Paul
was obliged to interfere with an open rebuke, and resist Peter
to the face. In a young and growing Church, which needed
next to the direct preaching of the Word, the consistent and
edifying example of its divinely commissioned leaders, we see
the very reverse. Peter is wavering and hypocritical, the

ARGUMENT. 341

Judaizing missionaries are narrow and bigoted. Paul and
Peter are at variance. Yet all parties have the promise of
guidance into truth, and truth of word is not sufficient without
truth of life. So scandalized were some of the Fathers by
this state of affairs that they supposed the whole scene to be
contrived by Pet6r and Paul. Peter agreed, that is, that he
would join the Judaizers in order to give Paul an opportunity
to rebuke them through him. Whether this hypothesis betters
matters I leave you to judge. I only bring it in here to
show the real difficulty in the co-operation of the human and
the divine. The Holy Spirit certainly is not chargeable with
Peter's timeserving, or with Barnabas* unworthy following of
a bad example. Yet Barnabas was one of the men full of the
Holy 'Ghost What I am saying is that this case may be par-
allel with the case of inspiration of the record of Scripture.
We can not go upon a priori theories in one case any more
than in the other. The co-existence of the divine and the
human does not make the divine chargeable with the errors of
the human in one case any more than in the other. In the
one case, as in the other, we must inquire into the evidence
of the facts. The evidence of the facts seems to me to justify
the conclusion that inspiration secured a sufficient infallibility,
i, e., an infallibility such as we need in a rule of faith and
practice. More than this, we are not authorized to affirm.
It has been said that the Holy Spirit is chargeable with the
errors of the inspired writers. I can not see it. When Drs.
Warfield and Hodge say no one now claims that inspiration
secured the use of good Greek, do they charge the Holy Spirit
with not using good Greek ? When the same authors say
that the Scriptures are written in human language, whose
words, inflections, constructions and idioms bear every-where
indelible traces of human error, do they mean that the
language of the Holy Spirit bears every-where indelible traces

342 ARGUMENT.

of human error? If we are to assert that where the Holy
Spirit is, there can be no imperfection, we shall simply rule
the Holy Spirit out of hunlan history, and out of human
hearts. To assert that the Holy Spirit is present in the whole
history of the Church, is not to assert that human error is
absent from the whole history of the Church.

We are looking at the charges and the evidence by which
they are supported. My contention is that if the theory of
inspiration which is implied in the pamphlet be in accord-
ance with the facts of Scripture it can not be contrary to the
statements of Scripture. Let us look at another of these
facts, one which was alluded to in the discussion of the suffi-
ciency of the charge. As we all know the Holy Spirit uses
the expressions the sun rises, the sun sets and the four corners
of the earth. On one notable occasion the sun stood still in
the midst of heaven. It is argued that these expressions
now deceive no one. But two and a half centuries ago how
was it? The plain Christian was then confronted with a new
theory concerning the relation of the sun to the earth. He
had a right to argue that these expressions on the face of them
expressed the old theory. They were so understood when
first used, they had always been so understood until a few
astronomers had brought forward their new tangled theory.
On the ground of inerrancy these Christian people would be
right. If the Holy Spirit indorses as his own and therefore
as absolutely true, every expression which he uses, then he in-
dorsed the geocentric theory of the universe. The feet that
now we have no difficulty with these expressions shows simply
that we have adjusted ourselves to them. Such an adjust-
ment is going on all the time. The very fact that it goes on
disproves the theory of the prosecution.

Now let me allude to a phenomenon which I venture to say
throws additional light on the method of inspiration. If the

ARGUMENT. 343

theory of iuerrancy is verifiable anywhere it must be in the
harmony of the New Testament with the Old. The New
Testament every-where presupposes the Old Testament and
argues from its texts as premises. If the care of God were a
literal and verbal accuracy it should be visible in the exact
correspondence of these two — the Old Testament text and the
New Testament application. Remember the point at issue.
It is not whether there is material variation. It is not whether
the New Testament writer makes a legitimate application of
what he quotes. It is whether the absolute truthfulness which
according to the committee is secured to every statement of
Scripture is verified by the New Testament quotation. Here
we must consider such facts as the following :

Matt, ii, 23. ** He came and dwelt in a city called Naza-
reth : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets; he shall be called a Nazarene." The formula used
by the Evangelist is the one used elsewhere to introduce quo-
tations from the Old Testament. But no such text is found
in the Old Testament. A similar case is James iv, 6, already
noticed in my Response. Now if it had been the will of God
to give us an inerrant Scripture would he not have made the
writers avoid these inaccuracies of reference? In John vii,
38, our Lord says : ** He that believeth in*me, as the Scripture
saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters." The
formula of quotation is the same used elsewhere. But no
such passage is found in the Old Testament, and the commen-
tators have difficulty in finding those that remotely suggest
it. Whether the Evangelist inserted the words ** as saith the
Scripture " by a mistake of memory, or whether our Lord gave
the substance of some Old Testament promise, makes nodiffer-
€nce to us here. On either hypothesis we can not secure
more than substantial correctness if even that. But your

344 ARGUMENT.

committee insist upon dbsoliUe truthfulness of every statement
and will be content with nothing less.

In looking at this and some similar cases one is tempted to
say that the advocates of inerrancy do not know the facts
of the Bible. The question is whether on the theory of iner-
rancy the New Testament writers could be allowed to quote
an Old Testament passage in a wrong translation. When the
Holy Spirit who is omniscient as well as truth itself says thus
it is written, mu«t he not give us exactly what is written ? If
he is not to allow the play of the human memory he uses even
to the extent of some inaccuracy we are shut up to this con-
clusion. So it is the theory of inaccuracy which charges the
error on the Holy Spirit, not the view of the pamphlet which
attributes the error to the bias of the human author. For
example, Paul says (Rom. xv, 21): *^As it is written. They
shall see to whom no tidings of him came, and they who have
not heard shall understand." The quotation is from Is. lii,
15, where we read: *' That which hath not been told them shall
they see ; and that which they have not heard shall they under-
stand.'* The sense of the two forms of the- passage is entirely
different. Paul makes it affirm the spread of the Gospel ta
ne\o regions, Isaiah declares a revelation of new truths.
Notice no one questions PauFs right to express his thought in
any words that are appropriate or to use in illustration of hi&
thought any quotation he chooses. The sole question is whether
on the theory of inerrancy he can say it is written, and then
introduce not that which is written but something else. The
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews does the same thing.
He quotes the Old Testament from the Septuagint even where
that differs materially from the Hebrew text. In x, 5, we
have an example where we read, ** Wherefore when he cometh
into the world he saith : Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest
not. But a body didst thou 'prepare for me." This is a quota-

/

I

i

ARGUMENT. 345

tion from Psalm xl, 6, where we find " Sacrifice and offering
thou hast no delight in, ears hast ihou digged for me." The New
Testament author quotes the Psalm as the words of Christ and
this he had a right to do. There is no question of the aptness
of the citation. But on the theory of inerrancy could he
introduce a quotation from a messianic Psalm and not give it
in the exact meaning of the original? The same author in
his second chapter (11-13) puts together three Old IjBstament
passages in these words: ** For both he that sa^ctifieth and
they that are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is
not ashamed to call them brethern, saying : I will declare
thy name unto my brethren. In the midst of the congrega-
tion will I sing praise. And again : I will put my trust in
him. And again : Behold I and the children which God hath
given me." It is this last passage which makes the difficulty.
The author evidently makes it an assertion by Christ of his
oneness with his disciples. I venture to say that one who had
paid no attention to the subject would be nothing less than
astounded to turn to the Old Testament original which is
Is. ix, 18 : ** Behold I and the children whom the Lord hath
given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the
Lord of hosts who dwelleth in Mount Zion." Now note the
point here. We are not discussing the right of the author
to adapt an Old Testament passage to his argument. The
question is whether on the theory of inerrancy he has a right to
quote an Old Testament passage with a meaning which it does
not contain. For it is evident that here a fragment of an
Old Testament sentence by being broken out of its context
is made to say what the original does not say. I say again,
if it had been the intention of the Holy Spirit to give us
absolute truthfulness of every statement of the' inspired
writers, he would not have put these stumbling blocks in the
way.

346 ARGUMENT.

But there are some other facts which bear on the subject to
which I wish briefly to advert. In the early Church as we
know there were especial manifestations of the divine presence
called charisTncda, or gifts, of the Holy Spirit. They were in
some ways analogous to that particular gift of the Spirit which
fitted the prophets for their work. If the Holy Spirit never
uses the powers of men without overruling all tendency to
mistake we should expect to find in connection with these gifts
the same coniplete absence of bias or error which the theory of
inerrancy postulates for the sacred writers. And among these
gifts that which takes the highest rank is the gift of prophecy.
Concerning this we should have an especial right to postulate
an inerrancy, similar to that which is given to the writers of
Scripture. For the possessors of this gift assume the name of
the organs of the Old Testament revelation. Their office is
said to be the edification of the Church. They are named
next to the Apostles among the officers which God has bestow-
ed upon the Church. They are expressly said to receive reve-
lations, 1 Cor. xiv, 30. If the activity of the Holy Spirit
must be unmistakably free from the admixture of human error
we should expect it to be so here. But when we look at the
New Testament intimations we are surprised that this is no-
where asserted. Rather do we find the contrary implied.
Paul for example (Rom. xii, 6) cautions the possessors of the
gift to let it be according to the proportion of faith. He
evidently means that this divine inspiration does not itself
determine the measure of its expression ; but that the recipient
of Jt needs care and judgment not to let thQ expression go be-
yond the assurance given him by his faith in Christ. This
assumes the possibility of the human error coming in to the
expression of the supernatural revelation. In another passage
the Apostle intimates the same possibility when he says : ** Let
the prophets speak by two or three and let the others discrim-

ARGUMENT. 347

inate," (1 Cor. xiv, 29). Here what is said by way of revela-
tion is submitted to the judgment of the others present who
are allowed to judge how far it is the work of the Spirit. *And
Paul seems to put himself on the level with 'these prophets
when he says in the text already discussed (v. 37) : " If any
man thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take
knowledge of the things which I write unto you that they are
a commandment of the Lord.** Confident of the genuineness
of his own revelation he submits it fearlessly to their judgment.
Elsewhere he protests that even he has not lordship over their
faith, (2 Cor. i, 24). Perhaps most significant of all in this
connection is the exhortation : ** Quench not the Spirit, de-
spise not prophesyings, (but many MSS) prove all things, hold
fast that which is good," (1 Thess; v, 20, 21).

I am not arguing that these texts directly assert any thing
concerning the inspiration of the Biblical writers. But it has
been asserted or intimated on the floor of ^his house that if
the Biblical writers ever made a mistake, the mistake was
chargeable to the Holy Spirit. It has been intimated by the
prosecution that the denial of inerrancy leads logically to blas-
phemy against the Holy Ghost — that sin which hath never
forgiveness either in this world or in that wnich is to come.
It is only proper if this be the case, if we are approaching the
brink of that awful crime against our Sanctifier, that we should
inquire into the analogies of the Spirit's action. And the
nearest analogy is certainly that extraordinary presence of the
Spirit in the early Church, which made all its parts to grow up
into him which is the head even (5hrist. Did these extraor-
dinary gifts secure complete immunity from human error even
in the communicating of revealed truth? All the indications
are against it. The analogy should make us cautious in arguing
on the similar gift of inspiration.

One of the prosecution affirmed that inspiration (by which

348 ARGUMENT.

he meant the inspiratiop of the Biblical writers) is ** such an
influence as made the organ of it God's mouth piece. The
inspired writers identify their utterances with God's — their
right to speak is that they are commissioned by God." The
difficulty with this assertion is that the moment we begin to
apply it rigidly we are obliged to make exceptions. When '
Paul says for example: **I thank God that I baptized none
of you save Crispus and Gains ; lest any man should say that
ye were baptized into my name. I baptized also the household
of Stephanas ; besides I know not whether I baptized any other/'
(1 Cor. i, 14, 15) — the human element is too palpable to be
explained away. Paul's memory is evidently uncertain on the
point he is discussing. His first impression is that he baptized
but two members of the Corinthian Church. Afterwards he
recalls another household. He is apparently uncertain
whether there may not be still others. There is no certain error
here. But the human element is so prominent that we can
not assert that the utterance of the author is identical with
that of the Spirit of God. This single instance is fenough to
overthrow the theory that the writers of the Bible every-where
identify their utterances with God's utterances. The fact that
the authors of Scripture are moved by the needs of the hour
has already been adverted to. How can we understand Luke's
saying that it seemed good to him as well as others who had
undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning those matters .
which have been fulfilled among us, to write them in order,
having traced the course of all things accurately from the first f Is
this Luke which studied the documents received from the eye-
witnesses and ministers of the Word, or is it the Holy Spirit?
Evidently we can not identify the utterances of the two. And
when Paul says we know in part and we prophesy in part, he
evidently does not claim for himself the omniscience of the
Spirit.

ARGUMENT. 349

No doubt you all admit.the force of these texts to ^ certain
extent. I do not bring them up as conclusive of my theory,
but as showing the complexity of the problem. The co-opera-
tion of the Spirit of God and the human will is a matter so
difficult to understand that it becomes us to be modest when-
ever we approach it. That the activity of the Spirit over-
rules aU limitations of humanity, no one of us believes. To
affirm that it allows defects of language and defects of mem-
ory to show themselves, and yet to affirm that no trace of
bias of any other kind is allowed to remain, can be justified
only by extremely distinct and unmistakable affirmations of
Scripture. And these I claim have not yet been brought to
light. And the theory, if true, ought to have the facts of
Scripture on its side, as well as the assertions of Scripture.

Among the facts of Scripture which have been discussed
of late as bearing on this subject, there is one to which I will
advert briefly, for it is as good for purposes of illustration as
any other. In the two lists of unclean animals in Leviticus
xi and Deut. xiv, we find the coney described as an animal
which chews the cud but does not divide the hoof. As no
one has yet been able to discover a cud- chewing coney the
example has been urged and, as seems to me, successfully
urged, against the theory of inerrancy. The only answer I have
ever heard from the inerrancists is this: That the coney is an
unknown animal and may have been a ruminant. It would
probably be answer enough to this to say that the coney is as
well known to us as nine-tenths of the animals mentioned in
the Old Testament. In fact there can be no reasonable doubt
of its identity, and that it is not a cud-chewing animal. But
those who thus took refuge in their ignorance overlooked a
nearly related fact. Along with the coney the hare is men-
tioned in both passages, and it also is described as chewing
the cud. The hare is still abundant in Syria. Its Hebrew

350 ARGUMENT.

nam'e is the name given to it in Syriac, Chaldee, Arabic^
Modern Hebrew and apparently in Assyrian also. There
can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that the Biblical as-
sertion in both passages is iucorrect. Where now are the
men who assert* that **a proved error in Scripture con-
tradicts not only our [their] doctrine but the Scripture claims
and therefore its inspiration in making those claims ?" Their
doctrine is gone and the claims of Scripture as well ; and, as
we have heard from this platform, the whole Christian sys-
tem and even the truth of natural religion goes with it. The
absurdity of such a conclusion shows that one of the premises
is wrong. The one which is wrong is the ooe which makes
the truth of Christianity depend on the truth of every state-
ment in the Biblical books.

The usual method of evading the difficulty into which the
advocates of inerrancy are brought by such facts as these, is
to say that the errors may have come in by transcription.
This is Mr. Lowe's language; ** If there be discrepancies
that can not otherwise be explained, they can be accounted
for upon the supposition of error ift transmission." Now,
bere is a point which needs elucidation. For there is a science
of text criticism. The advocates of inerrancy are inclined
to make it the only legitimate criticism. This science is able
to judge, with some degree of accuracy, what sort of errors
come in by transmission. And I believe I can say that the
unanimous judgment of the text critics is that transmission
will not account for one in a hundred of the discrepancies on
the surface of Scripture. ** On the ipsisdnia verba original
autograph theory," says Dr. Evans,t ** textual criticism, as
it restores to us the purer, more original form of the text,

* Hodge and Warfield, p. 245.

t Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration, p. 37.

ARGUMENT. 351

should tend to eliminate these discrepancies, and to bring the
various representatives into closer harmony with each other.
What is the fact? The very reverse. The more corrupt the
text the smoother it is, the moTe in harmony with itself, the
more do we find both of verbal and material assimilation in
parallel passages. The older and purer the text the rougher
we find it, the more striking are its individualities, the more
sharply accentuated are the differences, the less conformity do
we find to a standard of infallible exactitude." Dr. Evans
gives a number of examples which show this very plainly.
But we are not dependent on the evidence of the experts.
The Revised Version puts into every one's hands a means of
judging just what textual criticism will do. For it is morally
certain that the Revised Version is considerably nearer the
original autograph than is the Authorized Version. In other
words, the errors of transcription in the Authorized Version
have been largely removed in the Revised Version. Have
the discrepancies and apparent errors of statement also dis-
appeared ? I know of but one instance in which a real dif-
ficulty (to the theory of inerrancy, 1 mean) has been re-
moved by the return to a purer text, while in a number of
instances the diflaculty has been Jbrought more sharply into
view.

Another statement often made loosely on this subject is that
difficulties are disappearing under the light of modern discov-
ery, and we have only to wait for more light, and the absolute
inerrancy of the Scriptures will be vindicated. The state of
the case here, is not unlike what we have seen to be true of
textual criticism. Some difficulties have been removed, and
the general accuracy of that portion of Old Testament history
which comes into contact with Assyrian history has been con-
firmed. But the minute accuracy which inerrancy calls for
has been made, if any thing, more doubtful by these discov-

352 ARGUMENT.

eries. The Old Testament Chronology, for example, has had
to be readjusted by the Assyrian data.

In view of these facts you will readily understand that the
authors of the pamphlet could not honestly see the Presbytery
committed to the theory of inerrancy. But the question raised
by the prosecution will be said perhaps to be the narrower one
of the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. What I have
been saying bears on this problem also. For it would be sui-
cidal to commit the Presbyterian Church to a doctrine opposed
to the facts of Scripture. Not to emphasize this at present, let
us now look at the relation of the pamphlet to the Confessional
doctrine. And the first point I make is that the pamphlet no-
where directly contradicts the doctrine of the Confession.
A polemic is not an all-round treatise. The addresses on
** Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration" were not written as a
treatise on inspiration, but as an argument against inerrancy^
The objections of the committee and others that my doctrine
of inspiration is not clear to them, are not well taken. I am
not obliged to formulate any doctrine of inspiration. My ad-
dress was not designed to formulate any such doctrine. As
Dr. Roberts pointed out, it would be going beyond my province
to formulate a positive doctrine on thia or any other depart-
ment of dogmatic theology. As an exegete it is my duty to
deal with the facts of Scripture, and state them. It is the
duty of the theologians to make their theory accord with these
facts, and if the theory is not in accord with the facts, the fault
does not lie with the facts. And, as I have remarked, no one
has yet shown that the facts of the Scripture record have been
misstated or misrepresented in the pamphlet.

It is only necessary, therefore, for me to afi^rm the main
statement of the Confession that the Word of God is the only
infallible rule of faith and practice, and challenge the commit-
tee to show any thing in the pamphlet which contradicts this.

ARGUMENT. 353

/

They have not done it and they can not do it. What they
have done is to affirm that a book can not be an infallible rule
of faith and practice without being inerrant in its every state-
ment. But this only brings the committee into hopeless diffi-
culty. For on their own confession there are discrepancies in
the present text of Scripture. Its authority as a rule of faith
is therefore gone with its inerrancy. I see no escape from this
difficulty. The pious opinion that there once existed inerrant
autographs is a pious opinion only. It does no harm until it
is forced as the doctrine of the Church. It has no practical
bearing on the life of the Church, and may be allowed as a
harmless but unverifiable hypothesis. But the great funda-
mental doctrines of the Church are of practical importance.
They deal with the present Bible as a rule of present belief
and of present life. From this point of view the Confession
must be judged. And, first, it is clear that the Confession
will have nothing to do with original autographs different
from our present Hebrew and Greek texts. The contrary
has been intimated, but a glance at the language of the Con-
fession dissipates the delusion.

** VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the na-
tive language of the people of God of old), and the New
Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it
was most generally known to the nations), being immediately
inspired of God, and by his singular care and providence kept
pure in all ages, are therefore auihentical; so as in all con-
troversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal to them.
But because these original tongues are not known to all the
people of God who have right unto, and interest in the
Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read
and search them, therefore, they are to be translated into the
vulgar language of every nation into which they come, that
the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may wor-
23

354 ARGUMENT.

ship him in acceptable manner, and through patience and
comfort of the Scriptures may have hope."

The main interest ef the section is evidently in an au-
thentic copy of the Scriptures jor present reference in contro-
versies of religion. The Roman Catholic Church had directed
that the Vulgate version having attained currency in the
Church should be the standard in all controversy. It was
especially against the Roman Catholic affirmation that this
section of the Confession was directed. It emphasizes the
present Greek and Hebrew copies as being the fountain-head
from which the versions flow. It stands to reason that the
fountain is purer than the stream. It was probably with ref-
erence to the Vulgate which the framers of the Confession
supposed to have been corrupted by the tradition of the
Church, that they emphasized also the purity of the Greek and
Hebrew texts. The only originals they have in mind are the
present copies in th$ original languages. This is evident if
we try to insert the original autographs. We should then
read :

**The original aytograph copies being immediately inspired
of God were, and so far as they can be recovered by text crit-
icism stUl are authentical, so as in all controversies of religion,
the Church is finally to' appeal to them."

The absurdity of such a statement is seen at a glance. It
makes the standard of faith to be an unknown quantity, and
makes the decision in all controversies of religion dependent
upon the as yet imperfect science of text criticism. I do not
know how to make it plainer that the original autographs
were never in the mind of the Westminster man as differing
from our present Scriptures. Unless the standand of faith is*
to be impaired, we must affirm with the Confession that the
Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages. But in affirming
this we all agree that we mean not that no error has crept in,

ARGUMENT. 355

but that the infallibility of the rule of faith has not been im-
paired. But if this infallibility has not been impaired by er-
ror of transmission, it is not absurd to affirm that it may orig-
inally have co-existed with error in the autograph.

The doctrine of our Church has been said to be established
by the terras of reunion and the action of the Assembly of
1874. But this I deny in toto. It is beyond the power of
the Assembly to define the doctrine of the Church. What is
meant is that these Assemblies declared the majority of the
Church to hold a certain view of inspiration. But this does
not make it the faith of the Church. The faith of the
Church is formulated in the Confession. The Assembly can
interpret the Confession by way of judicial decision, not other-
wise. The resolution of the last Assembly can not add to
the Confession what is not there already.

It comes then to the question : is the doctrine of the com-
mittee found in the Confession ? Notice, their doctrine is
that of the absolute truth of every statement of tl^e Scriptures.
It is not, as they are now inclined to say, the historic reliabil-
ity of the whole Bible. The committee seem to think a
book can not be historically reliable which is not inerrant.
In which case they would not have any reliable history out-
side the Bible at all. But the question is one of inspiration,
and I must make one more attempt to get before your side
some distinctions which the committee are inclined to ignore.
They object to my definition of Biblical inspiration [Response,
p. 55], as if I recognized only this inspiration and no other.
They quote and misrepresent my affirmation that something
is technically called inspiration, as if I meant that technical in-
spiration is not real inspiration. I beg you to notice the
diflference in the use of words. The Biblical idea of inspira-
tion and the thedogical idea of inspiration are diflferent.
Both may be justified as correct, but they are not the same.

356 ARGUMENT.

Biblical inspiration, i, c, inspiration in the Bihliccd sense is gen-
erally associated with revelation. This is what I meant by
describing Biblical inspiration as a divine afflatus carrying
the man along so that he can not resist. I mean, the idea
of inspiration which we find in the Bible is here defined for
us. Let us look at it a little mor^ closely. The word in-
spiration, as I have said, occurs nowhere in the Old Testa-
ment, and but once in the New Testament. But the thing
is often described in the Old Testament. It is the extra-
ordinary activity of the Holy Spirit fitting men to do cer-
tain things. So in Judges iii, 10, it leads Gideon to deliver
Israel. In Judg. xiv, 6, the Spirit of the Lord comes mightily
upon Samson, and he rends the lion like a kid. Bezaleel
was filled with the Spirit of God ... to devise cun-
ning works, to work in gold, in silver, and brass; . . .
to work in all manner of workmanship. But its commonest
function is to fit the organ of revelation for his work. The
prophet is distinctly the man of the Spirit. It is unnecessary
for me to quote examples. The coming of the Spirit upon
the prophet was the method by which God put his words
into his mouth. The possessor of this inspiration is for the
time being the organ of the divine will. He identifies his
utterances with the utterances of God himself. This I say
is the Biblical idea of inspiration. It always goes with
revelation, I do not confuse revelation with inspiration —
I distinguish between the Biblical and the theological idea
of inspiration. Biblical language always associates inspira-
tion and revelation. At least I have called hitherto in vain
for a text which connects inspiration with the activity of the
scribe as distinguished from the prophet.

Now theological usage is diflTerent. Theology needs a word
to connote another activity of the Holy Spirit. It takes the
word inspiration for this purpose. This is what I mean when

ARGUMENT. 357

I say this influence is technically called inspiration. There is
nothing about a technical inspiration which Mr. Lowe supposes
to be distinguished from a real inspiration. When I say
that the technical theological sense of a word is different
from the Biblical sense, I do not mean that both senses are
not justified by the facts. If we are to discuss the organiz-
ing principle of Scripture we must have a name for it. In-
spiration is the name the theologians have chosen. What I am
concerned to point out is that there are two senses of the
word, and that there is a difference between theological and
3iblical usage. In theology inspiration is the organizing
principle of the books. In the Bible itself inspiration is the
activity of the Spirit which fits the organs of revelation for
their work. Now if this distinction is clearly grasped it shows
that a member of the court was mistaken in thinking that
I confound inspiration and revelation. To show this let me
call your attention to page 31 of the response, where I say :

"Now, up to this point we are all agreed. All parties here
acknowledge the following points : (a) The Bible contains a
revelation from God. (6) It contains other material not in
the proper sense revealed, (c) This material is of importance
to us because of its bearing on the history of revelation.
(d) This material was chosen and arranged by men acting
under a distinct influence of the Holy Spirit, which influence
we call technically inspiration; and (e) the result is a book
which in its totality is the Church's permanent and infallible
rule of faith and life. I say, all parties agree up to this."

The point in which parties differ is the extent of this activity
which in theology we call inspiration. It is an activity con-
cerned in collecting (in the parts of the Bible now in view)
and arranging literary ihaterial from all available sources.
It led the writers of the books to make the books. It led
them to make the books out of this complex material. Now

358 ARGUMENT.

I submit that the extent of this activity, the extent to which
it overruled natural bias, may rightly be made the subject of
inquiry, and that that inquiry must not proceed on the as-
sumption that the material so used is necessarily corrected
from error when incorporated in the Biblical book. To take
the example of the Chronicler. When he introduced into
his narrative statements so seemingly contradictory to those
in the books of Kings, did he correct the errors which we may
naturally suppose were already in them ? I say, we have no
reason to think so. This is the point of my question about
the Holy Spirit making use of a quotation. 1 did not allude
to the comparatively rare cases in which a Biblical author
avowedly quotes from another writer. I meant those cases
(like the Chronicler) in which a book is made up by compila-
tion. Can the Holy Spirit not lead a man to compile a book
without leading him to correct every mistake in the material
which he uses without avowedly quoting? The committee
gives a negative answer to this question. This I can not do.
And here is just the point of difference. I have no interest
in modern Biblical science except to acknowledge honestly the
facts it brings to light. Among these facts unmistakaoly is
this — that the historical books of the Old Testament are very
largely compilations from previously existing documents. If
this b6 a fact we must acknowledge it and must give roonii for
it in our doctrine of inspiration. But the doctrine as held by
your committee refuses to acknowledge this fact. At least it
seems to me unable to allow it. This doctrine insists in its
full vigor that every affirmation of the Biblical authors is the
direct affirmation of God himself. What I say is : we must
distinguish. It is only, in a secondary sense that we can say
compiled books are the works of the compiler. It depends
on how extensive his activity was. The theory of superintend-
ence held by Messrs. Hodge and Warfield is as inconsistent

ARGUMENT. 359

with the theory of your committee as is mine. Does the
Holy Spirit by superintending the work of compilation make
every affirmation of the book compiled his own, so that he ig.
chargeable with the statements of the book? It seems to me
not so. But your committee would hardly want to rule me
out of the Church by a test that would have excluded the
sainted Archibald Alexander Hodge, and would exclude his
brilliant successor the present Professor of Theology at Prince-
ton. The only difference between these gentlemen and myself
is that they insist on a superintendence that excluded certain
forms of error (inaccuracies that is) but not other forms of
error. How much error it excluded I hold we must fix by
interpretation as your committee would say.

And now what have I said about the Confession of Faith ?
Its main interest is in the Word of God in Scripture — this is
what I said about it and this I still maintain. Its main interest
is in the direct revelation, that is, which forms the heart of
Scripture. This is the part most prominently in the mind of
the authors when they speak of the Word of God, because
without this (the revelation) the Scripture would lose its value.
In predicating what they do of all Scripture however they re-
cognize that whatever the Sacred Books contain is by its asso-
ciation with the revelation and its bearing on it also (though
in a subordinate sense) the Word of God. This I have never
denied. What I have refused to do is to draw the conclusion
that human error must be absent from every part because
divine truth is present in every part. Where the human and
the divine coexist we can not always so conclude. The sinless-
ness of our Lord which is often held up as an analogue, is
abundantly testified iii Scripture.

But I wish to notice again the statement I have already
made that it is contrary to analogy to affirm a doctrine to be
fi fundamental doctrine of the Confession when it is not clearly

360 ARGUMENT.

stated in the Confession itself. To take any other ground is
to open the door to any amount of arbitrary construction, and
to read into the Confession fundamental doctrines without
end. The most disastrous principle to the formulation of
any creed whatever as a test of doctrine would be this. And
in this particular connection I beg your attention to the argu-
ment made in the court that the doctrine of the historic trust-
worthiness (by which in order to the decision of the case before
you must be understood the entire historic trustworthiness) of the
Scriptures ^^ underlies the whole Confessional doctrine and re-
quires no explicit and formal statement, just as the doctrine of
the divine existence underlies the Scriptures themselves, and
does not require a formal statement. For both in the Scriptures
and in the Confession there are some things which constitute
the bed rock of faith, the statement of which would be mere
surplusage." I must dissent from these propositions because
they seem to me to ignore the essential difference between
Scripture and Confession. In the Scriptures fundamental
truth may be under the surface as the foundation, without dis-
tinct and categorical assertion. But the Confession exists to
state doctrine. Its very reason for existence is that it may
bring into distinct formulation the doctrines of Scripture. To
assert that fundamental doctrine underlies the Confession is
to affirm the deficiency of the Confession and its inadequacy
to the very purpose that called it into existence.

But more than this may be said. Granting, for the moment,
that the divine existence is nowhere affirmed in the Scrip-
tures, but simply underlies them, we can easily show the
fundamental character of this doctrine by trying to abstract it
from them. Denying the divine existence simply reduces the
Scriptures to inanity. Take away that foundation stone and
the whole fair structure falls into shapeless heaps of rubbish.
But can we say the same of the doctrine of the absolute his-

ARGUMENT. 361

toric truthfulness of Scripture in its relation to the Confession ?
Withdraw this from the foundation ; is the building disturbed ?
It seems to me not. Separate in thought between the rule of
faith and the matters of secular interest in the Scriptures and
so long as you keep the rule of faith under the Confession, the
whole system is unshaken. You may refuse to make this dis-
tinction in thought. You may say there can be no rule of
faith unless it be inerrant. But that is your individual opinion
and can not bind any one who finds himself able to separate
the two things. And the question before you is not what you
find logical, but the extent to which you can reasonably insist
that your doctrine is the only possible basis of ministerial
standing. In this light I think you must hesitate to force the
acceptance of an implied fundamental doctrine upon a man
who does not find it implied at all. Even, your committee do
not insist upon their logic as a test of doctrinal soundness.
What I have said on this subject is [Response p. 28] ; ** It
is contrary to all analogy to express a fundamental doctrine
by implication. That the Word of God in Scripture is the
rule of faith and life, that as opposed to the Roman Catholic
doctrine it is the only infallible rule of faith and life ; that
it contains what is necessary for salvation ; that its authority
depends upon God, its author — these are fundamental doc-
trines, and they are plainly set down in the Confession. Not
so the doctrine of the committee. Therefore I conclude that
it is not fundamental." Now, when we come to look at the
doctrine which is said to underlie the Confession, we are una-
ble to say exactly what it is. That the system of doctrine we
receive presupposes the historic reality of a revelation we shall
all admit. To deny all historic truthfulness to the Scriptures
is, of course, destructive of Christianity. If the Gospels be
myths, if the Acts of the Apostles be a romance, if the Epis-
tles be forgeries — then the historic facts which lie at the basis-

362 ARGUMENT.

of our religion are gone. I hope I need not protest that iMs
historic truthfulness is as dear to me as to any one. But the
committee have raised an entirely different issue. They affirm
that the authors of the Bible were so kept from mistake that
their every statement is absolutely true, i. e., free from error
when interpreted in its natural and intended sense. Such an
historic truthfulness I find nowhere claimed for the Scriptures
by the Scriptures themselves or by the Confession. And when
such historic truthfulness, as distinguished from the general
historic truthfulness which we all admit, is said to underlie
the Confession, I can not find that it is «ven suggested.

But it is fair for me to point out that the doctrine I am
opposing is dangerous to the faith of the Church, and that it
does not accomplish the ends claimed for it. The committee
have argued at length on the supposed consequence of my
errors to show that they are only evil, and that continually.
It is allowable for me to show the results of forcing their
doctrine on the Church. Let us suppose ourselves to affirm
unanimously with the committee that the Holy Spirit so con-
trolled the inspired writers in their composition of the Holy
Scriptures as to make their utterances ** absolutely truthful,
i. e, free from error when interpreted in their natural and in-
tended sense." It is legitimate to point out first that this af-
firmation does not in itself secure the certainty in belief tHat
we desire. This doctrine has been held, no doubt, more or
less consciously by theologians in all ages of the Church. So
far from securing doctrinal unity, which is the legitimate test
of doctrinal certainty, it has produced the reverse. For, in
the seventeenth century, when the doctrine of inerrancy was
most stringently held, the doctrinal differences between
Christians of the different schools were mo^ tenaciously de-
fended and even emphasized as essential. In the second
place, it does not secure the historical trustworthiness you so

ARGUMENT. 363

much desire. Historical trustworthiness does not depend
upon dogmatic affirmations. Whether you allow it or not •
the historic trustworthiness of the Scriptures will be tested
by historic methods of inquiry. If they can not stand this
test they will go down in spite of your most emphatic tes-
timony to your belief in their inerrancy. Here is the vice
of this whole matter. It is an attempt to decide a historic
question on metaphysical presuppositions. Much has been
said here about the danger of new views. The danger is
in not meeting new views by right methods. The modern
apologetic method is to defend Christianity without the use
of the doctrine of inerrancy. The historic trustworthiness
of the Scripture is not thereby taken away, but rather es-
tablished. This is the true Protestant position. The Word
of God will stand any tests that are applied to it. When
it is claimed that it must go down before such tests, the
true answer is to apply the tests boldly and impartially, not
to condemn the application on the ground of a dogmatic
presupposition which is not even clearly affirmed in your own
Confession.

But again, the insistance upon this as a fundamental doc-
trine of the Church is to encourage doubt and uncertainty
in the mind of believers. Suppose this Presbytery decides
in the most solemn manner in which it can be called upon to
decide — under the charge of the Moderator and as judges of
a court of Jesus Christ — that it is a fundamental doctrine of
the Church that every affirmation of the Scriptures on no
matter what subject is absolutely true. Will not every one
of your members recall the difficulties that lie on the surface
of Scripture? They will begin to argue your doctrine, that
one proved error overthrows the Bible, and they will argue
it in this way — one apparent error apparently overthrows our
faith. If one holding your theory comes to you with an ap-

364 ARGUMENT.

parent discrepancy and you tell him that it has come in by
•transmission, you shock his faith scarce less than if you ad-
mitted it to be in the original. As Dr. Evans has well said
[Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration, pp. 39, 40] :

" But as a matter of fact, where are we? What have we ?
Have we an infallible revision ? Have we an inerrant result ?
Have we a New Testament or an Old Testament with abso-
lutely no mistake, no inaccuracy from beginning to end ? I
know of no respectable critic who claims that. Every body
will admit that in the processes of transcription and trans-
mission, at least, some error has crept into the book, some
contradiction, some inaccuracy, which, as the matter stands^
can not be accepted as the exact statement of that particular
matter. But is not that virtually to give up the whole posi-
tion? What is inspiration for? Surely to advantage the
reader. But what is the value of an infallible editorshipi-
which does not secure a permanently infallible text ? Here is
an error which has been in the text for fifteen centuries, and
which there can not be much doubt will stay there now for
all the centuries to come. What difference does it make, so
far as the readers of the past fifteen centuries and the
readers of all future centuries are concerned, whether the
error was in the original autograph or not? How does
it affect the value of the record to-day, for you and for me,
to say that the error which is there to-day was not there
eighteen hundred years ago. Your inerrant autograph is an
abstraction ; your inerrant text is an abstraction. Does God
hang his revelation on an abstraction? Does the present
error destroy the inspiration of the Bible as we have it? We
all say not. Then why should the original error destroy the
inspiration of the Bible as it was first given? If absolute
verbal infallibility was essential to inspiration, does not the
loss of that infallibility imply the loss of that inspiration ?

ARGUMENT. 365

If it was essential that the first copy should b^ inerraut in
every possible particular, if without such inerrancy it could
have no authority, why is not the same inerrancy essential
to every copy? You say: *A single error breaks down
the Bible.' One comes up and points out an apparent
error. Drs. Hodge and Warfield are constrained to ad-
mit that it has all the appearance of error, but that
if we only had the original autograph, etc. He is a busy
man, and cares very little for hypothetical abstractions, and
replies : * On your own theory the Bible has all the appear-
ance of being broken down by what has all the appearance
of being an error. When you find your original auto-
graph, I shall be pleased to hear from you.' You get the
General Assembly to declare that unless God gave an abso-
lutely errorless Bible, he gave no Bible at all. Your people
construe that to mean that unless you have an absolutely er-
rorless Bible, you have no Bible at all. What have you or
they gained ? I thank God that I am not shut up to any such
conclusion ; and, most of all, I thank God that when an in-
quiring soul comes to me with his difficulties, I do not have
to shut him up to any such conclusion. There are spots on
yonder sun ; do they stop it being a sun ? Why science tells
me that they are a part of the solar economy, and that the
sun is all the more a sun for the spots. How do I know that
it may not be so with the Bible ? "

By it he being dead, yet speaketh.

I can hardly add to the force of this presentation. It puts
before us with solemn emphasis the danger of putting the in-
fallibility of the Bible not where God puts it but somewhere
else. One proved error overthrows our Christianity ! Alas
that the Presbytery of Cincinnati should put it so easily into
the power of the enemy to overthrow our religion — the most
precious possession given us by God.

366 ARGUMENT.

But again to emphasize the doctrine of the committee is to
change the nature of Christian faith. The citation from the
Confession already used on this subject is as follows :

Chap. XIV, Sec. 2. ** By this faith, a Christian belie veth
to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority
of Ood hiviself speaking therein ; and acteth differently, upon
that which each particular passage thereof containeth ; yield-
ing obedience lo the commands, trembling at the threaten-
ings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and
that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith
are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for
justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the
covenant of grace."

Notice again that this emphasizes whatever is revealed in the
Word, not whatsoever is coyitained in the Word. It emphasizes
obeying the commands and embracing the promises. It
further lays stress on accepting, receiving and resting upon
Christ. Now notice the next section :

'*This faith is different in degreed, weak or strong; may
be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the
victory ; growing up in many to the attainment of a full as-
surance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher
of our faith."

- The theory of your committee puts a different assurance in
place of this. It has been said on the floor of the house that
the riper faith is, the more fully it is assured of the absolute
truth of the Bible. But the Confession evidently meaiis by
the **full assurance through Christ," the assurance of the
believer that he is redeemed from sin and accepted in the
Beloved. This assurance does not necessarily bring with it
the intellectual conviction of the inerrant truth of every state-
ment of Scripture. Nor does the firm resolution to believe
the inerrant truth necessarilv lead to the full trust in Christ

' ARGUMENT. 367

as a personal Savior, which alone is of religious value, and
which the Confession emphasizes.

Now, moderator and gentlemen of the court, I respectfully
submit the case to your judgment. The evidence shows that
I admit a bias in the inspired writers sometimes affecting
their statements of fact. Your committee have failed to
show that this is contrary to the Scriptures or the Confession
of Faith.

Your committee have failed to show that I deny the infal-
libility of the Scriptures as the rule of faith and life.

Your committee has failed to show that my doctrine of in-
spiration is in any way contrary to that affirmed in the Scrip-
tures and the Confession.

Your committee has failed to show that I advocate anything
out of harmony with the facts of Scripture or with the state-
ments of Scripture rightly interpreted.

Your committee has failed to show that I have in any way
impugned the essential and neces^ry articles of the West-
minster system.

On these grounds I respectfully ask, that in accordance
with the law and the evidence, and with my own plea, I may
be found not guilty of the charges brought by your committee.

368 JUDGMENT.

[^Transcript from the Records of the Presbytery of Cincinnati of
action taken at a meeting held in the First Presbyterian Church,
Cincinnati, Tuesday, December 13, 1892.]

JUDGMENT.

In the Case op the Presbyterian .Church in the
United States of America against the Rev. Henry
Preserved Smith, D.D.

Presbytery, after careful deliberation upon the charges,
specifications, and testimony, has arrived at the following
conclusions :

1. Charge I, and the two specifications under it, are not
sustained. Dr. Smith is, therefore, declared not guilty of

i •

this charge, and is hereby fully acquitted.

2. Charge II is sustained. AH the specifications under
this charge are also sustained, except the Vlllth, which is
not sustained.

3. Charge III is sustained. All the specifications under
this charge are sustained.

Charges II and III have thus been proved, and Dr. Smith
is found guilty of both these charges.

Therefore, the judgment of the Presbytery, sitting as a
court, is, that the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., be,
and hereby is, suspended from the ministry of the Presby-
terian Church until such time as he shall make manifest, to

JUDGMENT. 369

the satisfaction of Presbytery, his renunciation of the errors
he has been found to hold, and his solemn purpose no longer
to teach or propagate them.

At the same time, Presbytery expresses the kindest feel-
ings toward Prof. Smith, and it makes this disposition of the
case only because the interests of truth imperatively de-
mand it.

This certifies that the foregoing is a true copy of the
Judgment of the Presbytery of Cincinnati in the judicial
case of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America against the Eev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D.

Attest: Edward T. Swiggett,

SixUed Clerk of Presbytery of Oincinnati.

24

CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS

Submitted to the Presbytery op Cincinnati, October
17, 1892, AND Amended November 29, 1892.

CHARGE I.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Snjith, D.D., a minister
in said Church, and a member of the Presbytery of Cincin-
nati, with teaching (in two articles in the New York Evan-
gelist, dated respectively March 10, 1892, and April 7, 1892)
"contrary to the regulations and ^ practice of the Church
founded" on the Holy Scriptures, and set forth in the Con-
stitution of said Church, that a minister in said Church may
abandon the essential features of the system of doctrine held
by said Church, and which he received and adopted at his
ordination, and rightfully retain his position as a minister in
said Church.

Specification 1.

He teaches erroneously in the New York Evangelist, March
10, 1892, that a doctrinal qualification is only required inthe
officers of the Church at the time of ordination.

Specification 2.

He teaches erroneously in the New York Evangelist, March
10, 1892, and April 7, 1892, that whether in any individual
case the Church requires continued adherence to the doc-
trinal standard received and adopted at ordination, is only to
be made known by judicial process.
(370)

CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. 371

CHARGE II.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., being a min-
ister in said Church and a member of the Presbytery of Cincin-
nati, with teaching, in a pamphlet entitled ** Biblical Scholar-
ship and Inspiration," contrary to a fundamental doctrine of
the Word of God and the Confession of Faith, that the Holy
Spirit did not so control the inspired writers in their compo-
sition of the Holy Scriptures as to make their utterances ab-
solutely truthful ; i. 6. , free from error when interpreted in
their natural and intended sense.

Specification 1.

In a pamphlet entitled '* Biblical Scholarship and Inspira-
tion," published by the said Rev. Henry Preserved Smith,
D.D.^in different editions in the year 1891, which pamphlet
has been extensively circulated with his knowledge and ap-
proval, he teaches that the inspired author of Chronicles has
asserted sundry errors of historic fact. — Pages 92, 100, 101

and 102.

Specification 2.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
that the inspired author of Chronicles has suppressed sundry
historic truths, owing to inability or unwillingness to believe
them.— Pages 104, 105, 107, 109.

Specification 3.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
that the inspired author of Chronicles incorporated into his
narrative and indorsed by his authority material drawn from
unreliable sources. — Pages 101, 103.

372 charges and specifications.

Specification 4.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches that
the historical unreliability of the inspired author of Chronicles
was so great, that the truth of history therein contained can
only be discovered by such investigation, discrimination and
sifting as is necessary to the discovery of the truth in his-
tories by uninspired and fallible men. — Page 100.

Specification 5.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches the
historic unreliability of the inspired author of Chronicles to
have been such that " the truth of events" can not be as-
certained from what he actually asserts, but from what he un-
wittingly reveals.— Pages 100, 108, 109.

Specification 6.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he laches
that the historical unreliability of the inspired author of
Chronicles extended to other inspired historic writers of the
Old Testament.— Page 102.

Specification 7.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
that the historic unreliability charged by him upon the in-
spired historical writers of the Old Testament is chargeable,
though in a less degree, upon the inspired writers of the New
Testament. — Page 115.

Specification 8.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
that the disclosures of religious experience given by the in-
spired authors of the Psalms are not in accord with the mind
of the Holy Spirit, and free from moral defect. — Page 101.

charges and specifications. 378

Specification 9.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
that the assertions made by the inspired authors of the Psalms
are not to be relied upon as absolutely true. — ^Page 101.

Specification 10.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
tliat the last twenty-seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are
not correctly ascribed to him. — Pages 95, 96 of pamphlet.

Specification 11.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he specific-
ally affirms the impossibility of the Old Testament Scriptures
being free from all error of fact. — Page 92.

CHARGE III.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., a minister
in said Church, a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in
a pamphlet entitled ** Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration,"
while alleging that the Holy Scriptures are inspired, and an
infallible rule of faith and practice, with denying in fact
their inspiration in the sense in which inspiration is at-
tributed to the Holy Scriptures, by the Holy Scriptures them-
selves and by the Confession of Faith.

Specification 1.

In a pamphlet entitled '* Biblical Scholarship and Inspira-
tion," published by the said Rev. Henry Preserved Smith,
D.D., in different editions in the year 1891, which pamphlet
has been extensively circulated with his knowledge and ap-
proval, he teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures

374 CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.

is consistent with the unprofitablen,ess of portions of the sa-
cred writings. — Page 116. /

Specification 2.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with
error of fact in their affirmations. — Pages 92, 93, 95, 96, 100,
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 115, cited undercharge 11.

Specification 3.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
,that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with
such unreliability in their utterances that the truth of events
can not be ascertained from their utterances themselves. —
Pages 100, 102, 108, 109, cited under Charge II.

Specification 4.

In the pamphlet referred to in Specification 1, he teaches
that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with
a bias in the inspired writers, rendering them incapable of re-
cording the truth of events because incapable of believing it.
Pages 104, 105, 107, 109, cited under Charge II.

The End.

f ""a 069 662 179